Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill.

Bills committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGES (STAFF APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether all new appointments to the typing and clerical staff of Employment Exchanges are made from the unemployed typists and clerical workers on the books of the Exchange?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Appointments to the permanent staff are made by competitive examination, transfer from other Departments and promotion of ex-Service temporary clerks. Appointments of male temporary staff are made first from the register of redundant ex-Service temporary staff maintained by the Joint Substitution Board, and, failing suitable candidates being available from this source, from unemployed applicants registered at Employment Exchanges, preference being given to ex-Service men.
Appointments of women temporary staff are made from unemployed applicants registered at the Employment Exchanges.

ROAD SCHEMES (GRANTS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount that has been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee for grant schemes in respect of classified and unclassified roads; the amount actually expended; and what proportion has been paid by the local authorities?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Unemployment Grants Committee do not entertain applications in respect of classified roads. Since let June, 1929, schemes of work in connection with unclassified roads, of an estimated total cost of £8,002,000, have been approved for grant on the recommendation of the Committee. I am unable to inform the right hon. Member as to the amounts actually expended.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it possible for the Minister to give the amount on classified roads?

Miss BONDFIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will try to get the information.

WORK SCHEMES.

Sir K. WOOD: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who, during the last month, have obtained direct employment under schemes initiated by the present Government?

Miss BONDFIELD: The returns relate to the number of persons employed on schemes in operation on one day in each month, and show that on 30th January, approximately 10,000 more men than at the 19th December, 1930, were directly employed on the site of the works concerned.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Lady give me the cost of these 10,000 people if I put down a question?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think I might be able to do so.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. TINKER: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of interest paid on borrowed money to meet the
deficiencies to the Unemployment Fund since borrowing commenced; and the annual amount if the debt remains at £90,000,000?

Miss BONDFIELD: The total amount of interest paid on Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund between July, 1921 and 30th September last, was £8,675,276. The next half yearly payment of interest will be due on 31st March next. The interest payable on a debt of £90,000,000 at the average rate now being paid in respect of the existing debt would be about £4,300,000 per annum.

VACANCIES (COAT MACHINISTS AND FINISHERS).

Mr. SMITHERS: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour why no applicants were forthcoming from the Employment Exchanges at Shoreditch, King's Cross, Stepney, Hackney, Camberwell Green, and Camden Town in reply to a letter sent on 3rd February by Messrs. R. W. P. Paine and Company, Limited, for machinists and finishers, and to a similar letter sent on 11th February to the Exchanges of Barking, Borough, Holloway, Bermondsey, East Ham, and Lea Bridge Road?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having some general inquiries made with regard to the alleged shortage of these classes of workers. Meanwhile, I can give the following information with regard to the case specified by the hon. Member. On 4th February an indefinite order was received from Messrs. R. W. P. Paine and Company, Limited, for experienced

Date.
Boys, aged 16 and 17.
Young Men, aged 18–20.
Girls, aged 16 and 17.
Young Women, aged 18–20.


24th February, 1930
…
14,506
74,733
13,541
46,928


23rd February, 1931
…
33,182
143,652
23,136
87,837

ALIENS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any aliens are at present employed in trades in this country in which there are persons who are unemployed and in receipt of unemployment benefit; and, if so, the number of aliens so employed?

machinists and finishers for ladies' coats. On the same day two finishers were sent by the Exchange to this firm and were engaged. A finisher sent on the following day had her submission card endorsed "Vacancy filled." Two machinists were submitted, one on 4th February and one on the 9th; neither was accepted, one because she was too old, the other because she was not sufficiently experienced.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Lady use her influence to see that all vacancies are filled as far as possible by unemployed persons?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is done.

JUVENILES.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls of the ages 16–17, 17–18, 18–19, 19–20, and 20–21 in receipt of unemployment benefit at the end of February, 1930, and at the latest date available?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, giving the information so far as available.
Following is the statement:
Separate statistics for each year of age or for the numbers actually in receipt of benefit are not available. The following table gives the numbers, aged 16 and 17, and 18 to 20, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration, at 24th February, 1930, and 23rd February, 1931.

Miss BONDFIELD: The only figures available regarding the employment of aliens in this country are those obtained from the population census of 1921. At that date the foreign-born resident population of alien and unstated nationality in Great Britain included 112,080 males and 32,737 females, who were gainfully occupied. These figures
include employers, managers and persons working on their own account. Separate figures for employed persons are not available. The total is distributed over a large number of industries. The hon. and gallant Member will find particulars in the "Occupations" volume of the 1921 Census.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are no figures in the report to which she has referred which gives the number of aliens who receive unemployment benefit in this country, or the number who are employed?

Miss BONDFIELD: No such figures are obtainable.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady find out whether transitional benefit is to any appreciable extent paid to aliens?

INSURED PERSONS aged 16 to 64 classified as belonging to the cardboard box, paper bag and stationery industry at the end of June of each year, 1925–1930.


Year.
Estimated number insured at 1st July.
Number recorded as unemployed at end of June.
Differences.


1925
…
…
…
…
…
53,550
3,267
50,283


1926
…
…
…
…
…
55,450
3,549
51,901


1997
…
…
…
…
…
55,030
2,311
52,719


1998
…
…
…
…
…
54,740
2,116
52,624


1929
…
…
…
…
…
57,000
2,148
54,852


1930
…
…
…
…
…
57,400
4,560
52,840

ROAD WORKERS, BLACKROD (BENEFIT).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the differentiation in the treatment meted out to men employed on the Blackrod by-pass road in relation to claims for unemployment benefit covering a period of some days towards the end of 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: As my hon. Friend knows, the claims made at two offices were referred to a court of referees, and were disallowed. Claims made at a third office were allowed by the local insurance officer without reference to the court of referees. There is no action I can take in the matter.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Lady aware that these men numbering about

Miss BONDFIELD: It is difficult to make such an inquiry in respect of those who have been resident in this country for many years.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: How many aliens are members of the Federation of British Industries?

STATISTICS.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 in employment at the end of June, 1930, and at the same date in each of the previous five years, in the industrial group manufacturing cardboard boxes, paper bags and stationery?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

60 were and still are employed on the same job, that a number of them were refused their benefit and a number received their benefit; and is there any possibility of securing equality of treatment in these cases?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that this particular case is not within my power.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it possible for the right hon. Lady so to arrange the regulations that all such claims shall start in the same way in future?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having that matter looked into.

EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, LEYTON.

Mr. SORENSEN: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps are likely to be taken in the near future to provide
shelter during inclement weather for applicants at the Leyton Employment Exchange?

Miss BONDFIELD: The provision of shelters, apart from the usual waiting rooms at Employment Exchanges, does not at present form part of the building programme. I have made inquiry and find that such overcrowding as has occurred at Leyton has been due to claimants arriving before their scheduled times.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Lady aware that almost at any time of the week one can see numbers of the unemployed standing in the open air, exposed to rain and fog?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, but if those people got there at the scheduled time they would not have to stand about.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any reasons have been assigned to the Government by the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance for their inability to proceed more quickly with the inquiry?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the right hon. Baronet to the statements I made on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill on 18th February.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Has the Minister no more recent information to give to the House with regard to the Speed of the inquiry or the probability of there being an interim report?

Miss BONDFIELD: I said before that we were doing everything we could, and that the Commission were doing everything they could to expedite matters.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Has nothing been done to expedite it since then?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will state when the National Confederation of Employers and the Trade Union Council, respectively, were first approached by the Government with the object of their giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Government have not approached either of the bodies named for the purpose stated, but I am informed that invitations were sent to them by the Royal Commission on 9th January.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the Minister give any reason why an invitation was not issued at an earlier date, seeing that the Commission was instituted early in December?

Miss BONDFIELD: They met on the 19th December, and I think what I have said shows that there cannot have been very much delay.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the real complaint that this body has been such a long time presenting its evidence?

BENEFIT.

Sir A. POWNALL: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of those shown in the weekly return as unemployed who are actually in receipt of benefit; and what was the comparable percentage two years ago?

Miss BONDFIELD: Separate statistics of the number of persons on the register actually in receipt of benefit are not available. Of the total number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 23rd February, 1931, 92.9 per cent. had claims to benefit admitted or under consideration, as compared with 86.0 per cent. at 25th February, 1929.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say why there has been an increase of 6 per cent. in those two figures?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is due to the increase of the numbers unemployed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour when she intends to proceed with the Bill to implement the Washington Hours Convention?

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is intended to proceed with the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th January to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White).

Mr. GIBSON: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the strong feeling in the country about this Measure, and is not the present the most opportune time to proceed with it?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the country opposed to the Measure?

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is not the general feeling, "Give us a 48-hour week"?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Bill ready?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Lady have consultations with the Confederation of Employers before she introduces the Bill?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have had consultation not only with the Confederation, but with all important groups.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th January was to the effect that the Government desired to proceed with this Measure; yet we are at the 5th March and nothing has been done?

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot control the business of the House.

Mr. GIBSON: Has agreement been reached among employés and employers?

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot say that agreement has been reached.

Mr. MANDER: Will anything be done before Easter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Mr. MANDER: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour in what foreign countries there are in existence national industrial councils set up by law or by voluntary action; and what information she has with regard to their working and influence on industrial conditions generally?

Miss BONDFIELD: National industrial or economic councils of various kinds exist in Belgium, Canada, Czechoslo-
vakia, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, South Africa, Spain and the United States of America. I am not in possession of sufficient information concerning the working of these councils to enable me to express an opinion as to their influence on industrial conditions.

Mr. MANDER: Is it intended to set up a similar body in this country by voluntary action or otherwise?

Miss BONDFIELD: This country has set an example which other countries have copied.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Miss LEE: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of temporary women clerks over 21 years of age employed in the Ministry of Labour Exchanges; and how many of these women will, after 1st March next, receive a wage of less than 35s. 6d, per week and less than £2 per week, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: Of the 2,692 temporary women clerks in the Ministry of Labour Divisional Offices and Employment Exchanges on 1st March, 1,673 were over 21 years of age and in receipt of salary of less than £2 a week; and of these, 869 were in receipt of salary of less than 35s. 6d. a week.

Miss LEE: Can the right hon. Lady say whether there is any chance of the proposed cut being postponed?

Miss BONDFIELD: That question must be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. PYBUS: In view of the fact that all these questions arise out of the justice or injustice of the cost-of-living figure, will the right hon. Lady do something to start an inquiry so that the public can be convinced whether the cost-of-living figure is on a fair or unfair basis with regard to the remuneration of low-paid labour?

Miss BONDFIELD: That matter is now under consideration.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of temporary clerks employed by her Department; the number who are receiving less than £2 10s. per week as a salary;
how many of this number have travelling expenses to pay; and how many of them are under 25 years of age?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are 10,790 temporary clerks employed by the Ministry of Labour, 7,949 men and 2,841 women. 7,165–4,354 men and 2,811 women—are receiving less than £2 10s. per week, and of these 1,210–104 men and 1,106 women—are under 25 years of age. I am not able, without making inquiry of each individual officer, to state how many incur travelling expenses in getting to their place of employment.

Mr. MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in many cases the travelling expenses amount to 10s. or 12s. a week, and is she not prepared to consider that point in connection with their wages?

Mr. MATHERS: Does the right hon. Lady consider that these figures maintain the trade union rate for clerical work?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is common to all Departments. It is not a matter on which I, as Minister of Labour, have anything to say.

COST OF STAFFS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost per head as at January, 1931, of non-industrial Civil Service staff above the cost per head as at January, 1913?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon Friend on 26th February to a question put by the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Snell).

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is expected that the investigations now being held by the Royal Commission into the conditions of service in the Civil Service will be completed and their report published?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that the Commission have nearly completed the hearing of evidence but I am not in a position to forecast when the report will be published. I trust, however, that it may be available within a few months.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the Royal Commission addressing itself to the cost-of-living figure for civil servants?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have not followed the details of the Royal Commission.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are not the Government seeking guidance on that important matter?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The Government are seeking guidance on the whole matter.

Mr. BROCKWAY: In view of the progress of this Commission, is it not possible for the Government to postpone any reduction in the wages of civil servants?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has already explained that this is an automatic change corresponding to the cost-of-living carried out in accordance with agreements already in operation.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How can we expect employers not to break wages when the Government are busy cutting wages?

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE APPOINTMENT, PWLLHELI.

Major OWEN: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in appointing the new customs and excise officer stationed at Pwllheli, he will give instructions that the officer to be appointed must have a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Every effort will be made to appoint a Welsh speaking officer to the post to which the hon. Member refers.

Major OWEN: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that the procedure that has been adopted previously will not be followed of appointing people to these posts who say they have a knowledge of Welsh when it is afterwards proved that they have no knowledge at all?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That will certainly be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the basis of calculation of the latest index
figures of the cost-of-living as regards rents of working-class houses and flats; and the cost of travel to and from work?

Miss BONDFIELD: As regards rents, the figures relate to the average increase since July, 1914, in the rents, inclusive of local rates and water charges, of unfurnished dwellings of the types usually occupied by working-class families in a representative selection of the larger towns, both controlled and de-controlled rents being included. The average percentage increase shown at 1st February, 1931, was 54 per cent. As regards travelling, the figures relate to the average increase since July, 1914, in the third-class railway fares and in tramway fares, for journeys of equivalent lengths, account being taken of both ordinary and workman's fares. The average increase shown at let February, 1931, was 50 per cent.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not rent play a far greater part in working-class budgets than before the War, and has that consideration been taken into account?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes. The increase shown is 54 per cent.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How then does the right hon. Lady make out that the cost of living has come down to the extent claimed?

Miss BONDFIELD: The cost-of-living figure rose very much higher than it is now—to 170 and beyond.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 17 and 18.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether she will make an approximate estimate of the rates of wages in all industries where data are available on the basis of a normal working week, adjust them to the cost of living, and then state the value of real wages at March, 1931, as compared with July, 1914, equals 100, allowing for a cut-through average rate to cover hourly as well as weekly wages;
(2) if she will state the over-all average value of real wages covering the 10 years period February, 1921, to February, 1931, inclusive, as compared
with the similar value equals 100 at July, 1914, after combining rates of wages for a normal working week and cost-of-living index?

Miss BONDFIELD: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, as the reply is necessarily long, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Lady allow the reply, with an explanatory paragraph, to appear in the "Labour Gazette"?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think there is no reason why it should not.

Following is the reply:

The information in my possession is insufficient to provide a basis for a precise calculation of the average increase in rates of wages since July, 1914, but it is estimated, from such particulars as are available, that at 1st February, 1931, the latest date for which figures can at present be given, the average level of weekly full-time rates of wages was between 70 and 74 per cent. above the level of July, 1914, for workpeople of corresponding grades at the two dates. The increase in hourly rates of wages is estimated to have been between 90 and 100 per cent. The average level of working-class cost of living at the same date, as indicated by the statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labour, was approximately 52 per cent. above that of July, 1914. On this basis, the average increase in "real" rates of wages would appear to have been about 13 per cent. in the case of weekly full-time rates of wages and between 25 and 30 per cent. in the case of hourly rates of wages. Over the whole period from 1st February, 1921, to 1st February, 1931, the level of real rates of wages for a full normal week is estimated to have averaged about 3 per cent. above the level of July, 1914. These figures take no account of changes in average earnings resulting from increased unemployment and short-time working, from changes in the proportions of workers paid at time and piece rates of wages, or from changes in the proportions of workers in different industries and occupations, as to which statistics are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (APPRENTICES' WAGES).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the proposal of certain employers in the engineering industry in the Manchester area to reduce the weekly wages of apprentices owing to the fall in the cost-of-living figure, she will take steps to establish a trade board for the purpose of protecting the wages and general conditions of engineering apprentices?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that this is not practicable.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the reply that it is not practicable; the wages of apprentices in the engineering trade are going to be reduced, and there is not protection because the employers say that we have no right to interfere. My supplementary question to the Minister is this: in the event of these apprentices refusing to work under such conditions—and our trade union are against them accepting those conditions—will the Minister see that they are allowed to draw unemployment benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: I could not possibly give an answer to a hypothetical question like that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the wage reductions proposed bring these lads below the sweated wage level, will the right hon. Lady not take whatever steps she can to see that this sweated trade is protected?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Lady says that this question is hypothetical. It is an actual fact. Fancy the Minister of Labour telling me it is a hypothetical question. Does she say that to me? It is not hypothetical at all. It is hypercritical, that is all.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the profit of £66,689 7s. 9d. made in Carlisle and district in respect of Government-owned licensed houses during the year 1929–30 was a net or a gross profit; and, if net, what deductions have been made from the gross profit in arriving at the figure?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The figure of £66,689 7s. 9d. referred to represents net profit. For the details of the deductions made before arriving at the figure, I would refer the hon. Member to my Annual Report for 1929–30, which I mentioned in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham on the 19th February.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether among the deductions which are made in arriving at the net figure there is a deduction for Income Tax, and can he also say what the depreciation stands at?

Mr. CLYNES: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find all those points have been covered in the return.

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: What, Income Tax?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I understand so. If it is not covered, I will see that that information is supplied.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL.

Sir K. WOOD: 26.
asked the Home Secretary the present position with regard to the Factories Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: The position is that the Government are anxious to proceed with this Bill when they are in a better position to judge whether, having regard to other commitments and the state of Parliamentary business, it will be practicable to carry it through all its stages during the present Session.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. It may not be the right hon. Member's fault, but we could not hear a word of his answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep the Clyde Members quiet!"] May we have the answer repeated?

Sir K. WOOD: As the Home Secretary says the Government are now considering the position, may I ask what is going to happen to the Bill? Did he not state a long time ago that this Bill was urgent? Why has it been elbowed out by the Electoral Reform Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: It has not been elbowed out.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. SMITHERS: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the unpatriotic tendency of certain films licensed for exhibition in this country, he will introduce a Bill to establish a censorship of films under the control of, and responsible to, his Department?

Mr. CLYNES: I do not know what particular films the hon. Member has in mind. As regards the question of censorship I would refer the hon. Member to the full reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Glassey) on the 11th December last.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the film referred to is "Storm over Asia," and is it a fact that there is no Minister responsible for answering questions as to the desirability of certain films being exhibited in this country?

Mr. CLYNES: As to the latter part of the question, I have already given an answer to points of that kind. I am not to blame for it if the position be as the hon. Member states. As to the other point, I can only say that no special film was mentioned, and that there are different views of what are unpatriotic tendencies.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fortunate thing that there is some sphere of life still left which is not controlled by bureaucrats?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (WIRELESS AID).

Mr. FREEMAN: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been reached on the question of equipping the police with pocket wireless sets?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. But I am aware of certain experimental work which has been in progress, and the whole question of the further development of wireless as an aid to police work is under review by a conference on which my Department is represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 30.
asked the Home Secretary the total amount of compensation paid for industrial diseases in the
mining industry for 1929; and will he say what percentage of this was paid for the disease known as miners' nystagmus?

Mr. CLYNES: As shown in Table 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Statistics for 1929, the total compensation paid in that year for industrial diseases in the mining industry was £489,036. I regret that the form of the returns made to the Home Office does not enable me to give separately the amount paid for any particular disease, but I may point out that cases of miners' nystagmus accounted for over 52 per cent. of the total number of cases of industrial disease in the industry.

Mr. TINKER: 31.
asked the Home Secretary what is the cost per £1 of wages paid in compensation in the mining industry for the years 1928 and 1929; and what is the cost per person employed for the same two years?

Mr. CLYNES: As the answer is long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is estimated that the cost of workmen's compensation payments in the coal mining industry per £1 wages was in 1928, 6.5d. and in 1929, 6.8d. These figures do not include the metalliferous mines, for which the necessary data are not available, but it is not thought that the inclusion of these mines would make any material difference. The returns furnished to the Home Office under the Workmen's Compensation Act show that the cost per person employed in the mining industry, including the metalliferous mines, was in 1928, £3 4s. 1d., and in 1929, £3 5s. 6d.

DELEGATION TO SCANDINAVIA.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 78.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the expense, if any, that fell upon the Exchequer for the deputation, upon which the Secretary for Mines was included, which visited Scandinavian countries for the purpose of securing increased orders for British coal?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on 11th November
last. With regard to the suggestion in the last part of the question, I would ask the hon. Member to read the reply which I gave on the 16th December to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) as to the objects of the delegation to Scandinavia.

Mr. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the reason why little or no success was obtained by this deputation?

OIL PRODUCTION.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 79.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of petrol imported into this country during each of the last three years ended 31st December, 1930?

Mr. SHINWELL: According to the Trade and Navigation Returns, the quantity of petrol imported as such into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during each of the last three years was as follows:

Year.



Quantity (Million gallons).


1928
…
…
…
735


1929
…
…
…
810


1930
…
…
…
955

In addition the following quantities of petrol were produced in this country from imported oil:


Year.



Quantity (Million gallons).


1928
…
…
…
153


1929
…
…
…
162

Information for 1930 is not yet available.

Mr. MACDONALD: 80.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of oil made from British coal in this country; and the number of persons employed in this process during each of the last three years ended the 31st December, 1930?

Mr. SHINWELL: Accurate figures of quantities of oil made from British coal in this country are not available, but the following estimates are probably sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes. It is estimated that 45–48 million gallons of crude benzol, yielding about 32 million gallons of motor fuel, were produced in 1930, chiefly from gas produced at coke oven plants. In addition, creosote oil for use as oil fuel is obtained from the distillation of coal tar. Estimates for 1930 are not available, but in 1929 about
320,000 tons of creosote oil were obtained from the distillation of about two million tons of crude coal tar. I have no information as to the number of persons employed in connection with the production of these fuels.

Mr. MACDONALD: Will it be possible to get information regarding the number of persons employed?

Mr. SHINWELL: We are not satisfied with the information in relation to oil production in this country, and we are endeavouring to furnish definite statistics.

Mr. TINKER: Will it be possible to get information as to the number of tons of coal used in the production of oil?

Mr. SHINWELL: We are also endeavouring to obtain information upon that point.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION (CHAIRMAN).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 81.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will explain the circumstances and conditions in which the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission surrendered or commuted pension rights accruing to him; and whether any consideration in his salary of £7,000 a year was accorded to him in return for that surrender or commutation?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 82.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of pension and cash payment to which the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission prior to his appointment would have been entitled on reaching the age limit?

Major LLEWELLIN: 83.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the present chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission will, before the age limit has been reached, be permitted at his option to resume duties in the Civil Service with pension rights?

Mr. SHINWELL: All the points raised in these questions will be covered by the statement which, as I indicated in the reply that I gave on Tuesday to the questions asked by the hon. and gallant Members for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) and Epsom (Commander Southby), I propose to make on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate Clam VI, Vote 6.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the question was put down, I was not aware of the statement?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am quite well aware that there are many things of which the hon. Member is not aware. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] If I have said anything to offend the hon. and gallant Member, I will withdraw it unreservedly.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House is unaware of a number of points about this matter; and could he not, in anticipation of the general statement, give in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that Members may study it in advance, the actual facts asked for in these three questions seeing that it is necessary to them if the House is to make up its mind adequately about this subject?

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that the matter is likely to arise later tonight, and in that event no statement could be made as suggested.

Mr. BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every one of these questions covers essential facts, and cannot the House be given the facts quite apart from any other adventitious Debate which may arise?

Mr. SHINWELL: I promised last week, when the question upon this matter was raised, to make a statement on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate. That matter was withheld, and I have no control over it.

Mr. BROWN: Is it not a fact that before that question was asked no answer was given. Specific questions are now being addressed to the Minister, and why cannot the House be given the answers for which they ask?

Mr. SHINWELL: When I replied in the same sense last week, I understood that a somewhat long and complicated answer, having regard to the nature of the question, would be required, and I assumed that the House agreed with me that it would be better to raise the matter on the Report stage. That is why I have not the information at my disposal now.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.

Mr. TOOLE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary if he is yet in a position to inform
the House of the scope of the Bill which the Government propose to introduce to deal with the question of the Sunday opening of places of entertainment; and when he proposes to introduce the Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: The Bill, which I hope to introduce very shortly, will contain as its main provision a proposal to regularise the practice that existed before the recent decisions of the Courts. It will also deal with actions instituted to recover penalties for infringements of the existing law relating to Sunday observance. Decisions on questions of principle will be left to the free Vote of the House.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Will the rights of the employés be protected under this Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: The Bill will provide that no employé shall work more than six days a week.

Mr. TOOLE: Is it not also a fact that the trade unions concerned have come to an arrangement with the employers in the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand that that is so, and, indeed, the trade unions were part of the deputation which I recently received on the subject.

Mr. HANNON: Before the right hon. Gentleman introduces this Bill, will he take into consideration the very strong volume of opinion in this country that the sanctity of Sunday ought to be observed?

Mr. CLYNES: I have heard, I think, every side of opinion on this question, and we have had to take into account the very great public demand that there has been for some change in the law.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is it proposed to adopt the principle of local option, leaving the matter to the local authorities?

Mr. CLYNES: That was the practice as it existed prior to the judgment, and the purpose of the Bill is to restore to the local authorities the power to decide what they will do.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Are we to have a free vote?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I said so.

JEWISH PRISONERS (RELIGIOUS MINISTRATION).

Sir B. FALLE: 34.
asked the Home Secretary if he can say if any religious ministrations or synagogue service is provided for Jewish prisoners in His Majesty's prisons generally; and, if not, if prisoners of Jewish faith can be grouped in one or more prisons so as to allow of such service to be rendered at a minimum cost to the State?

Mr. CLYNES: Arrangements are made in consultation with the Jewish religious authorities for religious ministration for Jewish prisoners, and if at any prison difficulty is being experienced I should be glad to confer with those authorities. Any general plan of grouping Jewish prisoners of varying ages and different classes in the same prison would be inconsistent with the general schemes of classification adopted for the purpose of the treatment of prisoners.

EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.

Mr. MANDER: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any statement to make with regard to the future policy of the Government on the raising of the school age?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): It is the intention of the Government that the Bill for raising the school-leaving age shall be re-introduced in order that it may be pased into law under the Parliament Act.

Mr. FOOT: Is it the intention of the Government that the Bill shall be simply for the raising of the school age, or will it deal with the other question?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: It includes a provision dealing with the other question already.

EXPENDITURE (ELEMENTARY EDUCATION).

Sir A. KNOX: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education the annual cost per child of elementary education in England, France, and Germany at the latest available date?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The expenditure on elementary education from central and local public funds in England and Wales,
for the year 1929–30, amounted to £12 15s. ed. per child in average attendance. I regret that I am unable to give comparable figures for France or Germany, but I am sending the hon. Member such information as I possess in regard to the expenditure on elementary education in those countries.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does that figure show an increase or a decrease as compared with last year?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I must have notice of that question.

HYGIENE OF FOOD AND DRINK.

Dr. HASTINGS: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can give the approximate number of schools in which lessons founded on the Boards official syllabus, the hygiene of food and drink, are regularly given?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have no information as to the particular schools in which lessons are given on the basis of the Board's syllabus of hygiene of food and drink, but the extensive circulation of the syllabus shows that it is, in fact, used in a very large number of schools.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Education (Scotland) Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have been asked to reply. In view of the Government's intention with regard to the Education (School Attendance) Bill, which has been announced to-day, it is not proposed to proceed further with the Scottish Bill this Session. The Bill will, however, be reintroduced next Session.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I inquire why Scotland is being so disgracefully neglected?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why is the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) interested in Scotland? We will look after Scotland ourselves.

HOUSING.

PLYMOUTH.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 38.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking with regard to the five-year housing programme of the Plymouth City Council?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The programme of the city council has been the subject of discussion with my officers on Thursday last, and I am awaiting a further communication from the council.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist upon the very laudable attitude of protest which he has already taken up?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member agrees with me, I hope he will help me to get a better programme.

LEICESTERSHIRE AND SURREY.

Mr. WINTERTON: 39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he has yet received from the Leicestershire County Council a copy of the survey required by the Housing Act; if he will state how many houses are inhabited but unfit for human habitation; and how many houses it is proposed to build within the next five years to meet the deficiency;
(2) whether he has yet received from the Surrey County Council a copy of the survey required by the Housing Act; if he will state how many houses are inhabited but unfit for human habitation; and how many houses it is proposed to build within the next five years to meet the deficiency?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Housing Act of 1930 does not require a county council either to submit to me a survey of the housing conditions in the county or to submit a programme of building to be carried out in the next five years. What the Act does is to place on the county councils the duty of keeping in constant review the housing conditions in the rural districts of the county, and at the same time to request the rural district councils to supply information to the county council. The collection and examination of this information by the county councils is now proceeding.

POLICY.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will set up a national board for the expedition and co-ordination of housing development?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This question was the subject of recent discussion in this House, and there was no indication of any general desire that the present position should be reconsidered in this way.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the rate of progress, or lack of progress, in housing, and especially slum clearing?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think I have said in this House before that I am not satisfied, but the fact that we shall have within the next five years 80 per cent. higher than the previous period is some indication of progress.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made in rural districts?

SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES.

Dr. HASTINGS: 50.
asked the Minister of Health the number of clearance schemes, and the number of people proposed to be re-housed by them, that have been sanctioned by his Department since the passage of the Housing and Slum Clearance Act, 1930?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 117 areas in England and Wales, occupied by 24,237 persons, have been declared to be clearance areas under the Housing Act, 1930. These declarations do not require my sanction.

Dr. HASTINGS: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that is being made; and is he doing anything to stimulate local authorities to take advantage of this Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already explained that I am not satisfied with the progress made, and I shall not be for a very long time; but pressure is being exercised on those local authorities whose programmes do not appear to be commensurate with their needs.

CARNARVONSHIRE.

Major OWEN: 59.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses that have been built with the aid of subsidies under the various Housing Acts in the county of Carnarvon for the years 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1923, 1929, and 1930; and how many houses are now in course of construction?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement gives the desired information.

Year.
Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919.
Housing, etc., Act, 1923.
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
Total.


1924
…
…
—
23
—
23


1925
…
…
10
91
4
105


1926
…
…
—
186
31
217


1927
…
…
—
300
49
349

1928
…
…
—
35
79
114


1929
…
…
—
95
24
119


1930
…
…
—
—
17
17


Total
…
…
10
730
204
944


Under construction at 31st December, 1930.
—
—
23
23

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state, in connection with the third valuation of approved societies, if it is a uniform practice for the Government valuer to calculate, in the case of men, 28 per cent. of the total amount available for the provision of treatment benefits as the annual sum available for the provision of such benefits, and 30 per cent. of the corresponding sum in the case of women; and will he state the reason for the two different bases being adopted in the case of men and women, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The sum applied to treatment benefits including interest and State grant is converted into equal annual sums extending over the duration of the scheme which may be from four to 5½ years according to the date fixed for the fourth valuation. The difference referred to in the second part of the question arises from the variation in the State grant as between men and women.

Mr. LEWIS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state, in connection with the valuations of those approved societies which have been completed for the third valuation period, the gross surplus shown in respect of such valuations; the amount of such surplus which is not allowed to be used for the provision of additional benefits to insured persons whether the amount so retained is determined upon a fixed percentage basis; if not, the highest and lowest per-
centages as between the respective societies of the gross surpluses thus retained; and the reason therefore?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No general statement of the results of the third valuation of approved societies can be made until it has been completed for all societies. I would, however, direct the attention of my hon. Friend to Section 75 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, which requires the Treasury Valuer in certifying disposable surplus to have regard to the circumstances and pospects of the particular case with which he is dealing.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 56.
asked the Minister of Health what the estimated surplus is at present on the National Health Insurance Act; what was the interest upon the surpluses for the last year; and what was the cost of administration for that year?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member wishes to have information with regard to the total funds accumulated under the National Health Insurance Acts, and not to the surplus funds of approved societies and branches as ascertained at the quinquennial valuations. The total amount of accumulated funds in hand in Great Britain at 31st December, 1929, the latest date for which the information is available, was £126,000,000 approximately. The interest accrued during the year ended 31st December 1929, was £5,600,000, and the cost of administration—including central administration—for the year was £5,400,000.

PUBLIC HEALTH

SMALLPOX AND VACCINATION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of deaths of children under two years from effects connected with vaccination and the total number who have died from smallpox during the last 20 years?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The total numbers of deaths of children under two years of age in England and Wales which were registered in the years 1911–30 and classified to vaccinia and smallpox respectively were 57 and 64. In addition, there were 99 deaths in regard to which reference was made to vaccination either on the medical certificate or in reply to inquiry from the Registrar-General.

Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the fact that there appears to be a much larger number of people killed by vaccination than by smallpox, will the right hon. Gentleman proceed with his inquiries with the object of amending the vaccination laws?

Dr. HASTINGS: May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether the protection by vaccination does not last for more than two years?

GOVERNMENT LYMPH ESTABLISHMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 48.
asked the Minister of Health what charges, if any, are made to public authorities and to private purchasers for lymph produced by the Government lymph establishment; and if he will state the gross and net annual cost of that establishment, including technical and general staff, purchase and sale of calves, and payments for lymph issued?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Local authorities are charged at the rate of 6d. a tube for lymph for use in their institutions. No charge is made to Public Vaccinators or Medical Officers of Health. The gross and net costs of the Government lymph establishment for the year 1929–30 were approximately £15,000 and £13,000[...] respectively.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any reason why public authorities who use this lymph should not be charged for it, and that charge be set against the cost of the establishment?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is the common practice for public vaccinators to make no charge, and public institutions only charge a very low fee.

SEWAGE SCHEME, BELPER.

Mr. LEES: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he can explain the delay in putting into operation the proposed sewage scheme by the Belper Urban District Council; and when he exects operations on this project will be commenced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am still awaiting the receipt from the council of revised plans and estimates which were asked for in October last. I am, consequently, unable to indicate the probable date of commencement of the work.

Mr. LEES: Is the Minister aware that if this sewage scheme were undertaken, it would provide work for 70 men for nearly 12 months; and will he use his influence to try to get it commenced, so as to reduce the number of unemployed in the town?

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have been in communication with the local authority on several occasions, but one cannot compel them.

MALTA (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. FOOT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state the composition of the Royal Commission on Malta?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No, Sir, but an announcement will be made as soon as practicable.

Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that an announcement will be made?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir; I am sorry that I cannot.

Mr. HANNON: In the appointment of this Commission will care be taken to see that its members are detached from all the conflicts that have raged in Malta up to the present time?

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the real apprehension that is felt in many quarters of the House and in the country about the state of affairs in Malta, will
the hon. Gentleman do all that he can in his Department to accelerate the appointment of the Commission and the sending of it out to commence its work?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. We have all those considerations in mind, but these matters are sometimes a little difficult, and take a little time to arrange.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the names of the members of the Commission be announced to the House?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: When?

POOR LAW.

MENTAL PATIENTS (RECOVERY OF EXPENSES).

Mr. SORENSEN: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to prevent public assistance committees detaining clothing and other articles of discharged patients of mental hospitals in lieu of their payment of alleged debts?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Local authorities are entitled under the Statute to recover expenses of maintenance against the property of rate-aided patients, and I am not empowered to prevent such action. But if my hon. Friend has any specific case of hardship in mind, and will furnish me with the facts, I will make inquiries.

OUT-PATIENTS.

Mr. SORENSEN: 52.
asked the Minister of Health how many committees of visitors have taken steps to provide treatement for out-patients?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Board of Control recently initiated inquiries on this point, and I hope that the information will shortly be available.

RELIEF (ABLE-BODIED UNEMPLOYED).

Mr. E. D. SIMON: 53.
asked the Minister of Health the number of public assistance committees in England and Wales that are giving relief to able-bodied unemployed wholly in money; and, in view of the regulations issued by the Ministry, what steps is he taking to put a stop to the practice?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of any Public Assistance Authority which gives relief wholly in money to all able-
bodied applicants, but I am aware of a few instances of substantial departure from the Regulation, in which, no doubt, the convenience of cash payments both to the administration and to the recipients has tended to outweigh other considerations. In my view, the object of securing that relief should reach the applicant's family in the form of necessary articles of food is more important than any question of convenience, and I am impressing this view on the authorities concerned. Exceptional cases in which half the relief in cash may be inadequate to meet any necessary outgoings can, of course, be reported to my Department for special consideration.

Mr. MILLS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many public assistance committees are insisting upon a form of task work which, as the result of 36 hours' work, gives 5s. 6d. in money and 5s. 6d. in kind to these applicants; and does he not consider that to be something that he ought to inquire into?

MUNICIPAL WORKERS (WAGES AND SALARIES).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 54.
asked the Minister of Health what was the average over-all percentage increase for 1930 as compared with 1913 in the cost of salaries and wages of municipal workers for the 10 largest English cities or towns, including the London County Council area?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have not the information available.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).

Mr. HURD: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the announcement made to local authorities that the Ministry of Health are now found to have no power to authorise a council to raise money on the security of the general rate for purposes of water supply or sewerage, which were special expenses under Section 229 of the Public Health Act, 1875, means will be taken to carry out the purpose of the Ministry as expressed in the Debate on the Local Government Bill, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that a loan for the water supply or sewerage of a rural parish must be secured on the
special rates of the parish. The rural district council may, however, under the Local Government Act, 1929, agree to contribute from the general rate the whole or a portion of the loan charges for a period of years. The point is not, therefore, of much practical importance; but an amendment of the law to enable a, loan for a lump-sum contribution to be secured on the general rate will be considered when a favourable opportunity occurs.

Mr. HURD: Does that mean that the purpose of Parliament cannot be carried out because the law has decided otherwise?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No. I think that the question is not one of very large importance, because alternative measures are available.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Major THOMAS: 57.
asked the Minister of Health what was the amount found from the start of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, to the end of 1929, by employers, employés, and by the Exchequer; what was the surplus at the end of 1928, 1929 and 1930; what interest has been earned by those surpluses; and if any of these surpluses are being used for carrying out the 1929 Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer is long and involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The figures desired by the hon. Member can only be given as at 31st March in each year.

The total value of the contributions paid up to 31st March, 1930, in Great Britain under the Contributory Pensions Acts was £96,500,000, of which £49,500,000 was paid by employers. The total Exchequer grants to the same date amounted to £16,000,000.

The accumulated funds in hand, including accrued interest, on 31st March, 1928, was £37,400,000, on 31st March, 1929, £42,700,000, and on 31st March, 1930, £46,300,000.

The total interest accrued to 31st March, 1930, was £5,182,000.

With regard to the last part of the question I would point out that the finances of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, are not kept separate from those of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the table on page (ix) of the Financial Memorandum, which accompanied the 1929 Bill, when it was presented to the House. From that table he will see that it was estimated that the accumulated funds in hand will be gradually reduced until they will be practically exhausted about 1946.

AGRICULTURE.

RATING RELIEF, SUFFOLK.

Mr. LEES: 58.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of relief accorded to farmers in the county of Suffolk under the Local Government Act, 1929, for the complete financial year since the application of the Act.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not practicable for me to state how much of the total grant paid under the Local Government Act, 1929, goes as relief to the occupiers of agricultural hereditaments. It may be estimated, however, that but for the de-rating of agricultural land the amount of rates which would have been paid in respect of those hereditaments during the year to 31st March, 1930, would have been about £48,000 in the Administrative County of East Suffolk, and about £37,000 in the Administrative County of West Suffolk.

NATIONAL MARK (POTATOES).

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider the establishing of a national mark for British potatoes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I have, for some time, been in consultation with the National Farmers' Union and the organisations representing the distributive trade, with a view to the introduction of a national mark scheme for potatoes, but up to the present it has not been found possible to overcome certain difficulties that have presented themselves.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything to guarantee a national market for British potatoes?

Dr. ADDISON: We have a very excellent market, but the unfortunate fact is that the producers do not get a fair share of it.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Mr. LEES: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the acreage of sugar-beet grown in the county of Suffolk during 1930, and the amounts paid to the growers for the beet supplied to the factories?

Dr. ADDISON: The acreage under sugar-beet in the county of Suffolk in 1930 was 51,453 acres. The amount paid to growers for the beets supplied to the two Suffolk factories in 1930 was about £1,270,000.

Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a certain large sum of money has been handed over to the farmers and they are attempting to make slave conditions for the agricultural workers in Suffolk?

Mr. SPEAKER: rose
—

Mr. LEES: On a point of Order. Is not one entitled to ask questions with regard to slave conditions in England when questions are allowed in regard to slave conditions in Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot allow supplementaries which have no bearing on the original question.

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. The point of the argument is that a subsidy is being given in connection with the sugar-beet industry and we are not satisfied with the conditions.

Mr. SPEAKER: Question Time is not the time for argument.

Mr. LEES: On a point of Order. Is not one entitled, in view of the fact that a sum of money has been given to the farmers in Suffolk, to ask whether they are trying to reduce wages?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put a question dawn about that.

INCOME TAX.

COLLECTORS.

Sir F. HALL: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position of the Government with regard to the proposal to transfer the control of the collectors of Income Tax from the local commissioners to the Board of Inland Revenue; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter before a decision is arrived at?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Such a transfer as that to which the hon. Member refers would in any case require to be preceded by legislation.

Sir F. HALL: May I take it from the hon. Gentleman's answer that there is no intention of transferring these collectors to the Inland Revenue authorities at Somerset House?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that the hon. and gallant Member had better take the answer as I have given it.

Sir F. HALL: Having listened very carefully to the answer, I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would kindly answer my question, "Yes" or "No."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend to consider.

Sir F. HALL: Has it been considered? Is there any suggestion of this being done?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is no decision on the point, and before it could be done legislation would have to be introduced.

Sir F. HALL: Owing to the importance of this matter from the point of view of the protection of the taxpayer, will the hon. Gentleman take great care to see that no decision is arrived at before the matter has been before this House and discussed in this House?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already explained that it could only be done as a matter of legislation, and, therefore, the House must have an opportunity of discussing it.

LIMITED COMPANIES (REGISTRATION ABROAD).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that
within the past six months three companies, involving several millions of capital, for long registered here and paying Income Tax in this country, have now registered local Argentine companies to avoid the payment of British Income Tax; and whether he will consider the possibility of modifying the Income Tax laws for oversea concerns in such a way as to diminish the inducement at present existing to transfer the control of such companies to others registered in foreign countries?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I cannot undertake to give any information regarding the Income Tax affairs of particular companies, or make any comment as to the circumstances under which the control of any particular business has been transferred abroad. I may point out, however, that in many cases the transfer of control of concerns carrying on business abroad occurs by reason of the acquisition of the concern by foreign interests rather than because of any question of taxation. The latter part of the question involves a very wide and general issue which does not lend itself to discussion by way of question and answer; but I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 39 and 40 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, and will send him the extract in question.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this general, and not individual, practice of companies hitherto registered here being registered abroad leads also to loss of contracts coming to this country?

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the revaluation of property in connection with Schedule A has been commenced; and, if so, when ho expects it to be completed?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In England and Wales, outside the Metropolis, the revaluation of property is proceeding and notices of annual value will be ready for issue within the next two or three months. In the Metropolis and in Scotland only certain preliminary work has been done and the revaluation will not be completed before the autumn.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have any special instructions been given to the hon. Gentleman's officials?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind.

GOLD SITUATION.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the progress of negotiations with reference to the gold situation?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement which was published in the Press on 25th February, to which I am not in a position to add anything.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to bring the scale of pre-War pensions into closer approximation to the post-War standard, in accordance with the resolution of last November?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions put on 29th January by the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) and Walsall (Mr. McShane) respectively.

Mr. LEWIS: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to carry out the expressed wishes of the House although, when they were expressed, he was unable or unwilling to adduce any argument against them?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a matter for argument which I could not go into.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it a most unfortunate thing that the Government should have accepted the Motion and then should refuse to do anything about it?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In the Debate I explained the position quite clearly.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).

Mr. MANDER: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will con-
sider the advisability of arranging that third-class fares only shall be allowed to Members of Parliament visiting their constituencies until the registered number of unemployed has fallen to a normal figure?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on this matter during the Debate on the House of Commons Supplementary Estimate on 24th February.

Mr. MANDER: Would not this be a good opportunity for putting the House of Commons on a system of payment by results?

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

VINCENNES EXHIBITION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 75.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what arrangements have been made for British exhibits at the International Overseas Exhibition at the Bois de Vincennes, near Paris, to be held next May?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): While for reasons of economy His Majesty's Government are not participating in the main part of the International Colonial Exhibition, near Paris, they are organising an inquiry bureau in the "Cite des Informations" which adjoins it. There will be no space available for commercial exhibits in this bureau, and as the exhibition authorities are not erecting an international pavilion British commercial firms will not have an opportunity of exhibiting.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this a very curious anomaly, to lose an opportunity of advertising British goods?

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. BOYCE: 76.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that February is not a convenient month for Dominion and Colonial buyers and many foreign buyers to attend the British Industries Fair, the Government will consider holding the fair during the month of May or some other more suitable month in future?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The question of the date of the fair was considered by the Chelmsford Committee, who after carefuly weighing the evidence submitted recommended that the present date of the fair—immediately preceding the Leipsig Fair—should be adhered to.

Mr. BOYCE: Will the Government take this into further consideration and have regard to the fact that the principals of overseas buying houses are not attracted to this country in February, but later in the year, and will they show consideration for the comfort and convenience of their customers?

Mr. SMITH: I can only assume that that fact was taken into consideration by the committee.

Mr. BOYCE: 77.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that 20 visits of representatives of a London newspaper to the British Industries Fair were recorded by the turnstiles as 21 overseas buyers; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent misrepresentations and mistakes of this kind in future?

Mr. SMITH: My hon. Friend has made inquiries with reference to the occurrence referred to by the hon. Member, and finds that the representative of a journal which circulates overseas did not exchange the invitation card which that journal had received for a season ticket at the special press office and was, in view of the name of the paper, passed through the turnstiles at the various sections and entrances to the fair. It should be pointed out, however, that the final record of overseas buyers attending the fair will not have been affected as this is based on the actual cards presented and not on the turnstile readings.

Mr. BOYCE: In the event of an overseas buyer going first to the Olympia section, then to the White City, and then to the Albert Hall, would he be shown as three overseas buyers or only one?

BROADCASTING.

Major EDMONDSON: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that the conditions recommended by Lord Crawford's Committee for the broadcasting of controversial matter are taken into consideration by the governors
of the British Broadcasting Corporation in the arrangements made for broadcasting programmes?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): The answer is in the affirmative.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason why such continual publicity is given to the activities of the "Daily Herald"?

SITUATION IN INDIA.

STATEMENT BY MR. BENN.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement in regard to the situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The statement is of great length, and I propose to lay it in the Vote Office, so that it may be available in text for all Members, I hope, before 6 o'clock to-night, but, if it is the desire of the House, as I think it is, I will also read it now.

CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA AND MR. GANDHI.

Statement issued by the Government of India.

The following statement by the Governor-General in Council is published for general information:

'1. Consequent on the conversations that have taken place between His Excellency the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi, it has been arranged that the Civil Disobedience Movement be discontinued, and that, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, certain action he taken by the Government of India and Local Governments.

2. As regards constitutional questions, the scope of future discussions is stated with the assent of His Majesty's Government to be with the object of considering further the scheme for constitutional government of India discussed at the Round-Table Conference. Of the scheme there outlined, Federation is an essential part; so also are Indian responsibility and reservations or safeguards in the interests of India for such matters as, for instance, defence, external affairs, the position of minorities, the financial credit of India and discharge of obligations.

3. In pursuance of the statement made by the Prime Minister in his announcement of the 19th January, 1931, steps will be taken for the participation of the representatives of Congress in the further discussions that are to take place on the scheme of Constitutional Reform.

4. The settlement relates to the activities directly connected with the Civil Disobedience Movement.

5. Civil Disobedience will be effectively discontinued and reciprocal action will be taken by Government. The effective discontinuance of the Civil Disobedience Movement means the effective discontinuance of all activities by whatever method pursued in furtherance thereof and in particular the following:

(a) The organised defiance of the provisions of any laws.
(b) The movement for the non-payment of land revenue and other legal dues.
(c) The publication of news-sheets in support of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
(d) Attempts to influence civil and military servants or village officials against Government or to persuade them to resign their posts.

6. As regards the boycott of foreign goods, there are two issues involved; firstly, the character of the boycott, and secondly, the methods employed in giving effect to it. The position of the Government is as follows: They approve of the encouragement of Indian industries as part of economic and industrial movements designed to improve the material condition of India, and they have no desire to discourage methods of propaganda, persuasion or advertisement pursued with this object in view, which do not interfere with the freedom of action of individuals or are not prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. But the boycott of non-Indian goods (except of cloth, which it has applied to all foreign cloth) has been directed during the Civil Disobedience Movement, chiefly, if not exclusively, against British goods, and in regard to these, it has been admittedly employed in order to exert pressure for political ends.

It is accepted that a boycott of this character and organised for this purpose will not be consistent with the participation of representatives of the Congress in a frank and friendly discussion of constitutional questions between the representatives of British India, of Indian States and of His Majesty's Government and political parties in England, which the settlement is intended to secure. It is therefore agreed that the discontinuance of Civil Disobedience connotes the definite discontinuance of the employment of the boycott of British commodities as a political weapon, and that, in consequence, those who have given up during a time of political excitement the sale or purchase of British goods must be left free, without any form of restraint, to change their attitude if they so desire.

7. In regard to the methods employed in furtherance of the replacement of non-Indian by Indian goods or against the consumption of intoxicating liquor and drugs, resort will not be had to methods coming within the category of picketing except within the limits permitted by the ordinary
law. Such picketing shall be unaggressive and it shall not involve coercion, intimidation, restraint, hostile demonstration, obstruction to the public, or any offence under the ordinary law. If and when any of these courses are employed in any place, the practice of picketing in that place will be suspended.

8. Mr. Gandhi has drawn the attention of the Government to specific allegations against the conduct of the police and represented the desirability of a public inquiry into them. In present circumstances, the Government sees great difficulty in this course and feels that it must inevitably lead to charges and counter-charges and so militate against the re-establishment of peace. Having regard to these considerations, Mr. Gandhi agreed not to press the matter.

9. The action that the Government will take on the discontinuance of the Civil Disobedience Movement is stated in following paragraphs.

10. Ordinances promulgated in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement will be withdrawn.

Ordinance No. 1 of 1931 relating to the terrorist movement does not come within the scope of this provision.

11. Notifications declaring associations unlawful under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 will be withdrawn provided that the notifications were made in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement.

The notifications recently issued by the Burma Government under the Criminal Law Amendment Act do not come within the scope of this provision.

12.—(i) Pending prosecutions will be withdrawn if they have been Sled in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement and relate to offences which do not involve violence (other than technical violence) or incitement to violence.

(ii) The same principle will apply to proceedings under the security provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(iii) Where a Local Government has moved any High Court or has initiated proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act in regard to the conduct of a legal practitioner in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement, it will make application to the Court concerned for permission to withdraw such proceedings, provided that the alleged conduct of the persons concerned does not relate to violence or incitement to violence.
(iv) Prosecutions, if any, against soldiers and police involving disobedience of orders will not come within the scope of this provision.

13.—(i) Those prisoners will be released who are undergoing imprisonment in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement for offences which did not involve violence (other than technical violence) or incitement to violence.

(ii) If any prisoner who comes within the scope of (i) above has been also sentenced
598
for a jail offence not involving violence (other than technical violence) or incitement to violence, the latter sentence also will be remitted, or if a prosecution relating to an offence of this character is pending against such a prisoner, it will be withdrawn.
(iii) Soldiers and police convicted of offences involving the disobedience of orders—in the very few cases that have occurred—will not come within the scope of the amnesty.

14. Fines which have not been realised will be remitted. Where an order for forfeiture of security has been made under the security provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the security has not been realised it will be similarly remitted.

Fines which have been realised and securities forfeited and realised under any law will not be returned.

15. Additional police imposed in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement at the expense of the inhabitants of a particular area will be withdrawn at the discretion of the Local Government. Local Governments will not refund any money not in excess of the actual cost that has been realised, but they will remit any sum that has not been realised.

16.—(a) Movable property which is not an illegal possession, and which has been seized in connection with the Civil Disobedience Movement under the Ordinances or the provisions of the Criminal Law, will be returned if it is still in the possession of the Government.

(b) Movable property forfeited or attached in connection with the realisation of land revenue, or other dues, will be returned unless the Collector of the District has reason to believe that the defaulter will contumaciously refuse to pay dues recoverable from him within a reasonable period. In deciding what is a reasonable period, special regard will be paid to cases in which defaulters, while willing to pay, genuinely require time for the purpose; and if necessary the collection of revenue will be suspended in accordance with the ordinary principles of land revenue administration.
(c) Compensation will not be given for deterioration.
(d) Where movable property has been sold or otherwise finally disposed of by the Government compensation will not he given, and sale proceeds will not be returned, except in so far as they are in excess of legal dues for which property may have been sold.
(e) It will be open to any person to seek any legal remedy he may have on the ground that the attachment or seizure of property was not in accordance with the law.

17.—(a) Immovable property of which possession has been taken under Ordinance IX of 1930, will be returned in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.

(b) Land and other immovable property in the possession of the Government which has been forfeited or attached in connection with the realisation of land revenue or other dues will be returned unless the Collector of
599
the District has reason to believe that the defaulter will contumaciously refuse to pay the dues recoverable from him within a reasonable period. In deciding what is a reasonable period, special regard will be paid to cases in which the defaulter, while willing to pay, genuinely requires time for the purpose and, if necessary, the collection of revenues will be suspended in accordance with the ordinary principles of the land revenue administration.
(c) Where immovable property has been sold to third parties, the transaction must be regarded as final so far as the Government are concerned.

NOTE.—Mr. Gandhi has represented to Government that according to his information and belief, some at least of these sales have been unlawful and unjust. Government, on the information before them, cannot accept this contention.

(d) It will be open to any person to seek any legal remedy he may have on the ground that the seizure or attachment of property was not in accordance with the law.

18. Government believe that there have been very few cases in which the realisation of dues has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the law. In order to meet such cases, if any, Local Governments will issue instructions to District Officers to have prompt inquiry made into any specific complaints of this nature and to give redress without delay if illegality is established.

19. Where posts rendered vacant by resignations have been permanently filled the Government will not be able to reinstate the late incumbents. Other cases of resignation will be considered on their merits by Local Governments who will pursue a liberal policy in regard to the reappointment of Government servants and village officials who apply for reinstatement.

20. Government are unable to condone breaches of the existing law relating to salt administration, nor are they able, in the present financial conditions of the country, to make substantial modifications in the Salt Acts.

For the sake, however, of giving relief to certain of the poorer classes, they are prepared to extend their administrative provisions on the lines already prevailing in certain places in order to permit local residents, in villages immediately adjoining the areas where salt can be collected or made, to collect or make salt for domestic consumption or sale within such villages, but not for sale to or trading with individuals living outside them.

21. In the event of Congress failing to give full effect to the obligations of this settlement, Government will take such action as may in consequence become necessary for the protection of the public and individuals, and due observance of law and order.'"

In connection with this statement, my first duty is to express, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, their deep appre-
ciation of the public services rendered in this matter by the Viceroy, Lord Irwin.

I hope it is not too much to say that, owing to the patriotic action of those Indian Princes and British Indians who accepted the invitation to meet all parties in the British Parliament at the Round Table Conference, and owing to the strengthening of that Conference by the participation of the National Congress, we have begun a new era of co-operation and good will which will be to the benefit of both countries alike.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having read us a statement of the highest importance. He, of course, has had the advantage of already seeing that statement. I can only say at this moment that it is one to which we shall give our closest attention, but until I have been able to master it, I would prefer to abstain from any comment. I think it would be desirable for the Government to consider whether it would not be possible to expedite the discussion which has been promised us on the Indian Vote, which, I believe, is down for the week after next. It might be worth considering whether it would not be possible to have it one day next week, by which time the whole House will have been able to master the document, and I think that no time should be wasted before the substance of that document came before the House.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very sorry I was not here at the opening sentences of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that the document will be available to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is!"] I assumed that that would be so. I also feel that a document of this immense importance one would like to study very carefully, but after hearing what I have, I have no hesitation on behalf of my friends and myself, in associating ourselves with the congratulations tendered by the right hon. Gentleman to the Viceroy and all others concerned who have succeeded in this very notable achievement.

Mr. BROCKWAY: While very sincerely congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this result, I would like to put one question to him—whether the amnesty which is suggested for political offenders in Indian gaols will be extended to those who committed purely political offences,
and not violent offences, before the commencement of the civil disobedience movement?

Mr. BENN: I am afraid that I cannot go beyond the terms of the statement.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it the intention of the Government to give practical effect to this agreement forthwith, and, if so, will the political offenders to which the right hon. Gentleman referred be released at once?

Mr. BENN: That is dealt with, so far as it can be dealt with, in the statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what business he proposes to take to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The purpose of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night is to secure the two outstanding Votes which are due for the Report stage.

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that the First Commissioner of Works last night and the night before last gave us an assurance that these Votes would be taken at a reasonable hour, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that 11 o'clock at night is a reasonable hour, especially in the light of the observation of the Secretary for Mines a quarter of an hour ago that he had a long and complicated statement to make?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I am correctly informed, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner did not say "a reasonable hour," but "a reasonable discussion." [HON. MEMBERS "No, a reasonable hour!"] A reasonable discussion—that is what has been conveyed to me. However, it does not matter. As a matter of fact, all old hands in this House know that the Report stage of the Votes of Supply are very frequently discussed at 11 o'clock.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the First Commissioner of Works did not only say at a reasonable hour—and it is absolutely clear what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind—but that he went on to say,
It must not be taken that we are going to give a day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1931; col. 361, Vol. 249.]
But, quite apart from the pledge which I consider was given on behalf of His Majesty's Government, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a couple of hours might be given at a reasonable time to discuss something to which His Majesty's Opposition attaches importance, out of the weeks that are being wasted?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman talks about weeks that have been wasted, he will find me as adamant as a rock, but if he puts it to me as a reasonable request made by the Opposition, I always do my very best to meet that. I do, however, think it is quite reasonable in the circumstances to ask for these Votes. At the same time, during the day there will be opportunities for the exchange of views upon it, and I shall be only too glad to agree to anything which is agreed to by the usual representatives who arrange these things. But I must not be assumed to admit at this moment that it is unreasonable to ask for these Votes.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was the right hon. Gentleman present at Question Time, when the Secretary for Mines declined, or, at least, begged to be excused from answering three specific questions on a subject of importance, on the ground that he was going to make a statement on the Report stage? He was pressed again for a specific answer to the specific question, quite apart from the larger statement he wished to make. Therefore, is it not reasonable, when he withholds the information at Question Time, that it should at least be given at an hour which serves the public interest?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am always sympathetic with the claims of an Opposition. I have spent most of my life in Opposition, and if the right hon. Gentleman will leave it where I have left it, that during the day there will be an opportunity of discussing the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the proposal, I shall be only too glad to come to any agreement.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: There is one point I would put to the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that the Army Vote is down for Tuesday, and I am informed that the
Army Estimates are not yet in the Vote Office. But, first of all, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to complain that the right hon. Gentleman is disclosing secrets. The business for next week will be:
Monday: The Motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs approving Accession to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: We propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army, Navy and Air Estimates respectively, and to take the following essential Votes in Committee of Supply:
Tuesday: Army Estimates, Votes A, 1, 10, 13, 14 and 15.
Wednesday: Navy Estimates, Votes A, 1, 10 and 2; Supplementary Estimate, 1930, and Excess Vote, 1929.
Thursday: Air Estimates, Votes A, 1, 4, 3 and 8.
Friday: Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, further stages.
The Army Estimates will be published to-night. The Navy Estimates have been circulated this morning. The Army Estimates and the Air Estimates will be available to-morrow morning. As a matter of fact, I believe that if hon. Members will go to the Vote Office, they will find them to-night, but they will be circulated tomorrow.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider one point with regard to the Report stage of these two Supplementary Estimates? The first one deals, I believe, with the question of the Washington Embassy. Some of my hon. Friends will take same time to discuss that, but I want the Prime Minister to be good enough specially to consider the second one—the Mines Department Vote. That Supplementary Estimate deals with an entirely new service, and when it was taken in Committee the Secretary for Mines admitted that he was not prepared with full in-
formation on some of the points about which he was asked, and he explained that he thought the full information would be given on the ordinary Estimates. Of course, there have been no ordinary Estimates at present, it being an entirely new service, and when a new service is first introduced on a Supplementary Estimate, the proper course is for the House to obtain full information and to discuss the matter.
I desire to submit to the Prime Minister, with all respect, that in the circumstances the discussion of this very important matter of the setting up of the Reorganisation Commission, dealt with as a new service in this Supplementary Estimate, is one to which ample time should be given, and I would even venture to submit that it should be taken before 11 o'clock. [Interruption.] If he has already done so, I apologise. The other day I certainly understood from what the First Commissioner of Works said, that this would be taken before 11 o'clock, but I do ask the Prime Minister, even if he should press the first Vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I hope he will take both Votes before 11 o'clock, but I make a special plea with regard to this new service that it should be taken before 11, and certainly not following upon some other business after 11 o'clock.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have gone as far as I can and I hope no hon. Member will assume that what I have said is that both or either must be taken before Eleven o'clock. We must certainly get the first Vote to-night.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was the person concerned in the pledge given by the First Commissioner of Works, who I am sure will corroborate me. When the first Vote was on the Order Paper on the 23rd of February the First Commissioner came to me and asked how long I thought it was likely to take. I was not aware of the criticisms to be made, but I consulted my hon. Friends and they said about two hours. I conveyed that information to the First Commissioner of Works and he thereupon suggested that we should let him have the Committee stage on the understanding that there would be a reasonable discussion upon Report. On that
undertaking my friends and I agreed not to take the Vote on the Committee stage. There is a strong case for the second Vote, but I think the case with regard to the first Vote is even stronger.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on the Report of Supply [23rd and 26th February] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 156.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[4.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gray, Milner
Manning, E. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mansfield, W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.(Hillsbro')
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marcus, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, F.


Angell, Sir Norman
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George


Arnott, John
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Matters, L. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Ayles, Walter
Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)
Melville, Sir James


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Middleton, G.


Barr, James
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Millar, J. D.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Mills, J. E.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morley, Ralph


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Haycock, A. W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayday, Arthur
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Benson, G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Blindell, James
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mort, D. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hoffman, P. C.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Brooke, W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brothers, M.
Isaacs, George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir William
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Palin, John Henry


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Paling, Wilfrid


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palmer, E. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Chater, Daniel
Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Clarke, J. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Potts, John S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Price, M. P.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Pybus, Percy John


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Quibell, D. F. K.


Cowan, D. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lang, Gordon
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.


Dallas, George
Lathan, G.
Richards, R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ritson, J.


Devlin, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Romeril, H. G.


Dukes, C.
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Duncan, Charles
Leach, W.
Rothschild, J. de


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rowson, Guy


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Egan, W. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


England, Colonel A.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Freeman, Peter
Lowth, Thomas
Sexton, Sir James


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
McEntee, V. L.
Shield, George William


Gill. T. H.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Shillaker, J. F


Gossling, A. G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shinwell, E.


Gould, F.
McShane, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
West, F. R.


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tillett, Ben
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Toole, Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, w. R. (Norwich)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snell, Harry
Vaughan, David
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sorensen, R.
Walker, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wallace, H. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Stephen, Campbell
Watkins, F. C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Strauss, G. R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sullivan, J.
Wellock, Wilfed
Mr. Alien Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fielden, E. B.
Penny, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Beaumont M. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ross, Ronald D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Savery, S. S.


Boyce, Leslie
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whitt[...]e


Bracken, B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Simms, Major-General J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan, John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waidron


Butler. R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerset, Thomas


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chapman, Sir S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Christie, J. A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cranborne, Viscount
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mulrhead, A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Connor, T. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Frederick Thomson.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BED-RIDDEN PERSONS) BILL,

"to facilitate the use of wireless telegraphy by permanently bedridden persons," presented by Mr. Philip Oliver; supported by Miss Lloyd George, the
Marquess of Hartington Sir Boyd Merriman, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Cecil Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Sir Henry Betterton, Captain Bourne, Sir Henry Cautley, Major. Elliot, Mr. Marjoribanks, Sir Boyd Merriman, Major Tryon, and Mr. Turton; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Sir William Brass, Colonel Clifton Brown, Major Courtauld, Mr. Everard, Mr. Oswald Lewis, Captain Peter Macdonald, Vice-Admiral Taylor, and Major Thomas.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill): Mr. Batey, Mr. Bracken, Major Braithwaite, Mr. Culverwell, Sir Philip CunliffeLister, Sir William Edge, Mr. David Grenfell, the Marquess of Hartington, Mr. John, Colonel Lane Fox, Major Llewellin, Mr. Mander, Mr. Murnin, Captain Peake, Mr. Berner, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Tom Smith, and Mr. James C. Welsh (Coatbridge).

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Ancient Monuments Bill [Lords]): the Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Major Hills, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Mander, Mr. Matters, Sir James Reynolds, and Mr. Frank Smith.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (Scotland) Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Charles Brown, Captain Cazalet, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Sir Thomas Inskip, Mr. Albert Law, Mr. Philip Oliver, Mr. Shield, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Division of certain double-member constituencies.)

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, after the word "may," to insert the words "upon the advice of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lord President of the Court of Session."
This Amendment refers to double-member constituencies, and, as the time allowed for the discussion of these important Clauses is somewhat short, I propose to be as brief as possible. The course proposed by the Amendment is unusual. If accepted, it would prescribe the way in which the discretion of the Crown would be used in appointing a Commission to decide upon the boundaries of the new constituencies which are to be created in all these double-member seats. The reason why we have proposed an unusual Amendment is that the position is unusual too. It is unusual because of the nature of the seats that are affected as well as because of the nature of the Bill in which this Clause finds a place.
Let me very briefly develop both those points. In the first place the division and the delimitation of the new constituencies in the case of two-member seats is in many ways more difficult than in any other case. In many cases it is harder to carry out with fairness and with due appreciation of all the interests, and the conditions and the circumstances involved, than in the case of other constituencies to be found in the Ninth Schedule of the original Act. The reason for that is apparent to anyone who is at all intimately acquainted with any of the towns which constitute the two-member constituencies mentioned in the Schedule. If they are acquainted with any of these towns and look upon them on a municipal map, with the wards indicated, they will find that to bisect the towns con-
sisting of two seats is one of the most difficult jobs that any commission can have. A town of that size, as distinct from one of the larger metropolitan towns, is a more closely knit unit, and therefore more difficult to divide fairly. That is one thing which makes the capacity as well as the impartiality of the commission very important.
The next is, of course, the nature of the Bill. Whether hon. Members are supporting or opposing the Bill, everyone realises that one of the inevitable consequences of it, if not the reason why it has been introduced, is that it affords opportunities for bargaining between different political interests to a greater extent than any other possible method of representation. If that is the case generally, of course in constituencies of this kind the opportunities for bargaining are at a maximum, and for that reason again it is urgently necessary that those who live in these towns, as well as the public generally, should be convinced of the competence and the impartiality of the tribunal that is to delimit the electorates. That is why we have proposed the Amendment. The tribunal must be above all suspicion. We hope to elicit from the Home Secretary the nature of the trbiunal that he has in mind and how he proposes that it shall be set up, in order that we may be reassured as to the way in which these remaining 11 two-member boroughs will be sub-divided into 22 new seats.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): On one of the minor points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—that is the point relating to the division of wards and the action which the commissioners will have to take with regard to them—I may say that it is my intention at a later stage to accept the necessary part of one of the Amendments on the Paper; but with regard to the remaining part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and the purpose of the Amendment, I cannot indicate any agreement whatever with the object in view. In effect the Amendment would substitute for Ministers a body of out-side persons to advise His Majesty on the subject of this Clause. That would be so contrary to constitutional practice that one may well be surprised at the action of any right hon. Gentleman opposite in proposing such a
course. The least one can say is that it is highly improper to suggest that any outside body should be brought in for that purpose. It is a Minister of the Crown who must be responsible to this House for what might be done by the Commissioners. To say in a Clause that it must not be a Minister, but some outside persons who are to advise His Majesty upon the appointment of Commissioners, is to suggest the taking of a most unusual course and a departure from the constitutional practice.
The terms of the Clause are the customary terms set before the House whenever the question of re-distribution or rearrangement of constituencies has been dealt with in previous Acts of Parliament. I look with a good deal of apprehension on the temerity of the right hon. Gentleman in suggesting this departure from the regular course. Therefore I cannot for a moment think of accepting any part of this Amendment. We repel the suggestion that it is less likely that a Labour Minister would act impartially than any other Minister of the Crown, to whatever party he might belong.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: It is very interesting to hear the Home Secretary speak as the champion of constitutional practice. [HON. MEMBERS "He always has been."] It is very interesting to hear him time after time in these Debates standing there as a champion of the good old Conservative practice, but in the present case I think he has introduced an unnecessary element of controversy into this harmless Amendment. The Amendment is intended to imply no want of confidence in a Labour Minister more than in any other Minister.

Mr. CLYNES: The main argument in support of the Amendment was that we must have a guarantee of impartiality.

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, but impartiality, whatever Minister may be in office at the time. The Amendment is not particularly aimed at the present Home Secretary. It is moved to ensure what I should have thought the whole Committee would have desired, namely, an impartial inquiry into the boundaries of double-Member constituencies. Before we proceed further, we would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, true to the good old Conservative and constitutional practice, if he still remains Home Secretary when the Bill comes into operation,
is going to act as his predecessors acted and appoint Commissioners who are admittedly impartial in the opinion of Members of all parties. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going to act as former Home Secretaries have done in these cases, my right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment to a Division.

Lord ERSKINE: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has regarded the Amendment as an attack upon himself or his impartiality. We who put the Amendment on the Paper had not that in mind at all, and, as my right hon. Friend has just said, no one knows what Home Secretary will have to administer the Bill if it passes into law. We are not asking in the Amendment that the Commissioners who are appointed by these three gentlemen shall not be responsible to His Majesty's Government. All we are asking is that there shall be no doubt whatever in the mind of any party, whether it be Labour or Liberal or Conservative, as to the complete fairness of the method by which these double-member constituencies are divided. When the Home Secretary comes to think of the matter, I do not think he will continue in his contention that for once in our lives we of the Conservative party are trying to do something which is highly unconstitutional. We are not. We know perfectly well that the Commissioners will divide these boroughs and will be responsible to the Government, and we know that, should there be any trouble afterwards, the person who will have to answer will be the Home Secretary for the time being.
All that we are asking is that there shall be no doubt whatever in anyone's mind that the people who appoint the Commissioners to divide the areas shall be people who have no special political predilections whatever. In the past, rightly or wrongly—I am not saying which—there have been, during the periods of other Governments, all sorts of accusations thrown across the Floor from one side to the other, that double-member constituencies have been divided up, that some person has wangled certain constituencies, and that in a given case a better showing has been given to the Liberal party or the Conservative party or the Socialist party. None of us wants that. If we want these double-
member constituencies to be divided up, they should be divided up in a perfectly fair way. Our Amendment is not unconstitutional, and I hope that on second thoughts the Home Secretary will accept it.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: As my name is attached to this Amendment, I would like to say a few words in its support. I am surprised and disappointed at what the Home Secretary has apparently read into it. I assure him that he has read into it something that none of us can see for a moment. My Noble Friend who has just spoken has really touched the point at issue. In a previous Clause we have decided to change the system of election. That must affect the double-member constituencies. It brings up also a form of redistribution. It is most important that when that is done, there should be no shade or shadow of suspicion that anyone has tried, no matter to what party he belongs, to work the change to his advantage. Everyone knows that in redistribution or the dividing of wards or parts of constituencies, it is possible to incline one way or the other. We thought that our suggestion would find an echo in the mind of the Home Secretary, and that is that any such suspicion should be completely forestalled.
While admittedly this proposal may in some respects be an unusual one, I think the Home Secretary tried to frighten us by stressing his repudiation of any proposal to interfere with the Constitution. After all, our Constitution is an elastic one and the point is to make it work in the best interests of all concerned. I do not think that the constitutional argument is a very strong one in this case. I think we are all agreed that it would be undesirable to do anything which would give any shadow of a foundation for the suggestion that any political party would be favoured by this division to the disadvantage of some other party. I hope that, even if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept our Amendment, he will accept the assurance that no innuendo is intended against his bona fides or those of any successor to his office from his own party.

Mr. BARR: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the nature of
this Amendment. Its object is stated to be that of securing the strictest impartiality. Yet the proposal is not that those persons who are here named should act, as Commissioners. It is not proposed that the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lord President of the Court of Session should act as Commissioners in working out these delicate negotiations and allocations so as to secure proper lines of demarcation in those boroughs which are now known as two-Member constituencies. They are only to come in to give advice to His Majesty as to the appointment of the Commissioners. His Majesty may, on the advice of those here named, appoint the Commission. That proposal may mean that these persons are to give advice on the question of a Commission being set up at all, in which case they are definitely brushing aside His Majesty's Ministers, or it may mean that these persons can nominate the members of the Commission, in which case also they are definitely brushing aside His Majesty's Ministers. I hold, therefore, that the Home Secretary is well justified in marking—I might almost say in branding—this proposal as an interference with the constitutional right of the Government to be advisers to His Majesty and to appoint Commissions and to nominate Commissioners. Every day questions are addressed to the Government as to the names of Commissioners appointed to carry out various kinds of work. I hold that the main point in getting an impartial decision is in the Commissioners themselves, and that that matter should be subject to the advice of His Majesty's Ministers and the decision of the House of Commons. The nomination of the Commissioners ought not to be placed in the hands of any outside body. This House and the Ministers of the Crown should be the judges on the question of who are to be nominated for this purpose. I see no reason why, in this instance, as in the past we should not have a body of Commissioners who will give full satisfaction to the House of Commons and carry out this work in an unbiased, non-political and impartial fashion.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As one who suffers under the two-member constituency regime, I should like to say
that I think there is a point of substance in the principle underlying this Amendment. It is a very delicate and ticklish matter to decide exactly how these constituencies are to be divided. I could divide my own constituency in such a way that any Liberal must win. On the other hand, I could divide it in such a way that any Conservative or any Socialist must win. But I am not sure that I am satisfied with the people who are going to advise the Home Secretary. If I am going to be separated from my better half, I would rather see the President of the Divorce Court named. I do not see that the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord President of the Court of Session are specially qualified on the subject, even to give advice. If you are going to introduce any outside element I should certainly want an appeal against their advice to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. Although I think this is going to be a very difficult business, I am prepared to leave if to the good sense of the gentleman who happens to be Home Secretary for the time being. The right hon. Gentleman who now occupies that office has never struck me as being very cunning—though perhaps I do not know him well enough—but I am prepared to leave him to carry out the usual procedure, and what usually happens in these cases is that a very experienced civil servant, who is an expert at this sort of work, advises the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary, not knowing much about it, accepts the advice. There is no reason for suggesting that that particular civil servant has any political bias, and, as far as knowledge is concerned, I am prepared to leave the matter to the Home Office.

Major COLFOX: The speech of the Home Secretary in refusing to accept the Amendment would have carried more weight had he told us how he proposes to arrange this matter. He told us that the proposal in the Amendment was unconstitutional and unprecedented. But is it? The last occasion on which anything of this nature was done was in 1918, and one of the Commissioners on that occasion was the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker Lowther. Therefore it seems to me that it is nonsense to talk of this proposal as unprecedented or unconstitutional.
Obviously, for a task of this sort you want people who are above suspicion. Various distinguished men all through the ages have held office as Speakers of the House of Commons, and I think we may say that they have always been above suspicion. The same can be said of the two distinguished legal officers mentioned in the Amendment. A body composed of those three people would, obviously, command the confidence of all concerned. It is rather amusing to observe how the Home Secretary jumps to the conclusion that he and his friends are being attacked in this Amendment. There was no suggestion to that effect, either in the Amendment itself, or in the speech of the Mover. Yet the right hon. Gentleman immediately jumped to the conclusion that the bona fides of members of his party were being impugned. There never was a more ridiculous suggestion, but it is a rather interesting psychological study how hon. Members opposite, when they do not understand anything of the subject in hand, always come to the conclusion that people are trying to attack them.

Captain CAZALET: I cannot imagine how anyone can think that we desire to impugn the motives or the impartiality of the Home Secretary or any other Minister, and I think it was quite unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to register such indignation and surprise at the reasonable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). But I should like to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. What kind of people does he contemplate as Commissioners in this case? That is a reasonable question. Precedents have already been quoted. We have been told that on a previous occasion Mr. Speaker Lowther and certain civil servants acted in this capacity. Does the Home Secretary contemplate appointing the same kind of people. Naturally, we cannot ask him to nominate the Commissioners to-day, but if he gives us the assurance that they are going to be the same type of outstanding and impartial people as have been appointed in recent years for similar purposes, we shall be satisfied.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): It appears to me that the one question at issue here is: On whose
advice is His Majesty to act in this matter? I think we are all agreed that it is in accordance with Constitutional form and practice, that His Majesty should act upon the advice of his Ministers. In this case I assume that would mean on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It appears that we have some experience as to the course to be pursued in connection with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) and the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last asked for further information as to the intention of my right hon. Friend in this matter and in reply to that question I may recall to the Committee that certain Commissioners were appointed for England and Wales in connection with the redistribution of seats in 1918. The then Home Secretary appointed a commission consisting of Mr. Speaker Lowther, now Lord Ullswater, two retired civil servants, Sir S. B. Provis, K.C.B., and Sir T. H. Elliot, K.C.B., Colonel C. F. Close, C.B., of the Ordnance Survey, and Sir W. T. Jerred, C.B., who was secretary of the Speaker's Conference in 1917. The same Commissioners, with the exception of Colonel Close, also acted in connection with the scheme made in pursuance of Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act of 1918 which had relation to elections on the basis of Proportional Representation. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend—and I assume that this applies to anyone occupying his position—will pursue a similar course in so far as the appointments to this Commission are concerned. While my right hon. Friend very properly took up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the constitutional issue, there can be no difference of opinion as to the desirability of securing strict impartiality in this matter, and my right hon. Friend will do his best to see that it is attained.

5.0 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have now received an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State which we are delighted to have. We are glad to have had this Debate, because we have elicited from the Home Secretary an affection for strict constitutional procedure, as representing the settled convictions of the
party opposite, which will form a very valuable precedent for the future, and as such it was well worth just a few minutes' expenditure of our Parliamentary time. That is of great value, and I only trust that it will be a precedent which both his party and those who sit on the benches behind him will faithfully follow in the months to come. The Home Secretary spoke, as has been said, a little umbrageously after I moved this Amendment, but let me make this point; of course, it is not unconstitutional; it is only unconventional. There is no question of objection to the Amendment from the point of view of real constitutional practice.
If the Home Secretary will reflect, he will see that the proposal, unusual as it was in a Bill of this character, was simply along the line of a great deal of modern development, in which the tendency has been that in matters where, I will not say the Minister of the Crown is likely not to be impartial, but where he wants to put it out of the possibility of his being partial, to set up bodies which should in their action be as far as possible outside party influence. I have a number of instances in my mind, and those bodies are analogous to the three names suggested in the Amendment as the appointers of this Commission.
There is, however, in fact, one serious objection to the Amendment, which made me for a moment hesitate before I moved it. The Speaker of this House has himself been a member of previous Commissions. The last thing that I would wish would be, by reason of making him one of the three appointers, to make it unlikely that he should be a member of the Commission for the future. That is in itself an objection to the Amendment, which made me hesitate with regard to it, although I think, on all other constitutional grounds, it was, though unusual, quite proper.
However, what we principally wanted was an assurance from the Home Secretary that he would be strict in following precedent in the nature of the Commission that he wanted to set up. That was our purpose. We have now had that assurance from the Under-Secretary of State, coupled with, as I say, a splendid declaration of faithfulness to the Constitution on the part of the Home Secre-
tary. As a result of that happy combination which we have had, I am wiling that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. O. Baldwin) and other hon. Members—in Clause 2, page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "the City of London and." I want to point out that this discussion must be restricted exclusively to its application to Clause 2. I cannot allow a general discussion on this Amendment in relation to matters beyond the scope of Clause 2.

Mr. OLIVER BALDWIN: As I imagine there will be a chance of discussing the question at a later stage, I will not move my Amendment now.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in preparing any such scheme the Commissioners shall have regard to the existing boundaries of the municipal wards and shall take care that such wards be not divided.
I move this Amendment in the regrettable absence, owing to illness, of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon). We who have experience of this matter realise that very much in the political life of a municipality centres round its wards. People who inhabit the same ward get accustomed to going to vote in certain localities, both for Imperial and local elections. They work together as ward associations for the purposes of both their municipal and national politics, and I feel that an additional ward in these two-Member constituencies will bring very great inconvenience to such electors as might happen to be in a ward that is compulsorily divided. The ward system is one which is completely understood by the electors, and that advantage, I feel certain, should be preserved in dividing these boroughs. It may be true that it will result in one division being slightly larger than the other, but, speaking for my own constituency, I know that the people who live in a particular ward have a very strong local ward feeling and that they dislike it intensely, if anything
happens that necessitates the severance of one part of the ward, and they would greatly dislike being taken out of their accustomed political associations and compulsorily put into a new constituency, with which they had had but little connection.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: I support the Amendment. I should like to ask the Home Secretary if he will give me some indication of the way in which he proposes to perform this operation. I speak as an interested party, because I am one of those who are going to be cut up, and when one is going to cut up, one is entitled to ask the surgeon what parts of one he is going to remove. The position of my constituency is quite different from that of any other double-member constituency. I believe it is the only constituency in the county that contains two distinct boroughs. The Parliamentary division of Brighton contains the borough of Brighton and the municipal borough of Hove, as the Home Secretary knows, because he very often visits us for the purpose of recuperation. The total number of Parliamentary electors in the Parliamentary borough of Brighton, which includes Hove, amounts to 126,000, and two-thirds of them reside in the municipal borough of Brighton, so that if the Home Secretary is going to put a dividing line between the two, he is going to tack part of the municipal borough of Brighton on to the municipal borough of Hove; and, therefore, the people who pay their rates in Brighton will have a Parliamentary vote in Hove, and the position will be much more confused than it is at the present time.
The boroughs of both Brighton and Hove have been extended quite recently, and of a total area of approximately 16,000 acres, 14,000 acres are in the Parliamentary Division of Lewes, so that again will complicate matters. A lot of the people who live in Patcham, Rottingdean, Ovingdean, and other places pay their rates to Brighton and vote in the Parliamentary Division of Lewes, and if, in addition to the present complications, the Home Secretary makes matters more complicated, I think the intelligence of the voters will have to be very much increased, in view of the other complications contained in this Bill.
It is impossible under this Bill and under the constitution of the municipal boroughs of Brighton and Hove to make the municipal and Parliamentary areas coterminus, because, as I said before, a great deal of the borough of Brighton goes out into the Division of Lewes. Therefore, the only thing which will satisfy this matter of the question of the Parliamentary Division of Brighton is to go into the question of the redistribution of the East Sussex seats. That can be done, I think, without any very great increase in the number of Members. For these reasons, I support the Amendment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I also should like to support the Amendment. I think the Home Secretary, on reflection, will agree that it is essentially practical. We have to divide the constituencies, and if they have to be divided, it should be done in such a way as will cause the least inconvenience. The municipal workers are in the habit of polling in particular wards and stations, and it would be very unfortunate if an arbitrary line were drawn through a constituency in this necessary division, in some way which would interfere with the polling station with which the electors were familiar and would cause confusion. The Home Secretary has indicated that he has some sympathy with the Amendment, and I sincerely trust, in view of the fact that it is essentially practical and desirable from every point of view, and is a convenient and necessary modification of the Clause, that he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: I think more has been understood in the two speeches that we have just heard than is actually covered in the Amendment before the Committee. I have, even as Home Secretary, no particular surgical functions in connection with the work which the Commissioners have to perform. It would be for the Commissioners to prepare schemes, and no doubt the two hon. Members who have just spoken would have some opportunity later on of expressing their views with regard to those schemes, and probably of being able to put their views before the Commissioners, either directly or through agents who would be, no doubt, as interested as they are.
I accept generally the purpose of this Amendment, though it would, I think, give rise to some inconvenience if the whole of the words as they are on the Paper were inserted. I am certain that the Commissioners under the Bill, so far as practicable, would include the whole of a ward in a particular constituency, but there will in all probability be some instances where, through certain geographical or perhaps river or other conditions, it would be difficult to do it, and I suggest that the Amendment should stop at the word "ward," and not continue to require, indeed to compel, the Commissioners to do what, under certain very exceptional circumstances, they might think it extremely unwise to do. I would therefore be prepared to accept the Amendment in this form:
Provided that in preparing any such scheme the Commissioners shall have regard to the existing boundaries of the municipal wards.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to express my appreciation of the statement of the Home Secretary, who has, I think, taken a wise course. If these Commissioners are to be relied upon at all, surely they would give very earnest consideration to the boundaries of the wards, but to tie the Commissioners down, as in the Amendment as it stands, would perhaps provide a disadvantageous position for the wards. It is advisable that in the division of such a constituency as my own, there should be a fair apportionment of the electorate to the separate divisions. If we are to make two constituencies instead of one, it is only right that he Commissioners should be left to divide the division according to the electorate in each.

Captain BOURNE: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. As a matter of order, it would be easiest if he would move to leave out the last words of the Amendment after the second word "wards." That would be the simplest way of dealing with it.

Amendment to proposed Amendment made: Leave out the words
and shall take care that such wards be not divided.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) Before preparing any such scheme as aforesaid the said Commissioners shall, in every constituency in respect of which a scheme is to be prepared under this section, bold a local public inquiry at which the Commissioners shall ascertain the views and opinions of the electors as to the method of division to be adopted in respect of such constituency.
Nothing in this Clause would compel the Commissioners to hold an inquiry before deciding upon a scheme. If the records of what happened under the Act of 1918 are studied, it will be found that the Commisisoners who were appointed to consider whether or not a number of constituencies should be put under Proportional Representation, in every single case arranged a local inquiry. They did it also in respect of a good many alterations of boundaries and redistribution of seats, and I feel that it is a matter of some importance that in a double-member constituency the opinions and wishes of the local people should be expressed. If they hold the local inquiry which I am seeking to provide, they will not be compelled to follow the opinions of local people, but they will be compelled to listen to them and to give due weight to them in making up their minds as to the fairest way of dividing up the constituency. What may look upon the map to be the easiest method of redistribution is not always the most suitable from the point of view of the locality. Very often parts of a district, for geographical, industrial and other reasons, can be worked together, and other parts can be kept separate, and it will make for smooth working if these factors are taken into consideration.
On the question where the line should be drawn and what should be put in one constituency and what in another, it is important that the views of those who will form the new constituencies should be consulted. As the right hon. Gentleman said on my last Amendment, probably my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson) would have the opportunity, either by himself or through his agent or through his friends, to express his views as to how his constituency should be divided, but I do not see, as the Clause is drafted, anything to make certain that the Commissioners will take a course to allow that to be done. I feel certain that they would, but it should be laid down as an expression of the views of Parliament that
they ought to take that course before coming to a final decision.

Mr. SHORT: I may bring this discussion to an early close by admitting the principle underlying this Amendment and accepting its spirit. In connection with the redistribution of seats under the 1918 Act, the Commissioners caused advertisements to be put in the local Press, and local inquiries were held. I think that it is generally admitted that those inquiries—

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Were not the inquiries at the discretion of the Commissioners?

Mr. SHORT: Yes, they were, I propose to accept the purpose and the spirit of this Amendment, but, as at present advised, I am not satisfied that these are the best words to carry out the purpose of the hon. and gallant Member. In these circumstances, I am prepared to ensure that on the Report stage suitable words are found to give effect to the Amendment.

Major HILLS: Will the hon. Gentleman also promise to make it a public Inquiry? I took part in one of the inquiries under the Act of 1918. The question was whether the county of Durham should be given Proportional Representation. It was a very valuable inquiry; it was largely attended and excited great local interest. Though a contrary decision would have given me a seat for life, I thought that the decision of the inquiry was a wise and just one. So I hope that the inquiry will follow in the main the lines laid down by the Act of 1918.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am not at all as sanguine as the Under-Secretary of State that, in accepting this Amendment in the spirit, it will materialise in the form in which he thinks that it will. I have a right to speak with some authority on this question of Commissioners and the question of redistribution. There was a Commission set up after the Irish Treaty to determine what portions of Northern Ireland were prepared by their own will to transfer themselves into the Free State and to determine that in a spirit of justice. Perhaps there is no episode in the history of the relationship of this country to Ireland more disgraceful than the conduct, the methods, and the policies which were carried out in relation
to that matter. Three Commissioners were appointed by the British Government, as part of the arrangement made in the establishment of the Treaty, to hold an inquiry in Northern Ireland in order to determine the will of the people—that was the declaration in the Treaty—in relation to the Government under which they were prepared to serve. The Commission held inquiries, and I take it that the purpose of those inquiries was to have an impartial adjustment of the questions about which there was controversy. What happened? The county of Tyrone had repeated elections with overwhelming majorities, and the county of Fermanagh had elections and overwhelming evidence was given by local bodies and responsible public men, but, notwithstanding the declared will of the people at the poll, and the reasoned views put forward to the Commissioners, and notwithstanding the general consensus of opinion, the Commissioners transferred these large communities from Southern Ireland, under whose control they desired to be, to Northern Ireland. That was contrary to the whole evidence that was submitted to the Commissioners, and contrary to he whole spirit of the people whose liberties were involved.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to allow the hon. Member to give an illustration, but I would remind him that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland and we must not use this occasion to ventilate Irish grievances.

Mr. DEVLIN: I want to save this country from the dangers from which we have suffered. The Under-Secretary of State agrees with the spirit of the Amendment, and is prepared to put the spirit into language which will materialise the spirit in Parliamentary form, but there must, first of all, be a Commission above suspicion. We must have a guarantee that the Commission will act upon the evidence which they seek and secure, which was not done in the case to which I have referred. I am not at all sure that this Amendment is not mere make-belief. It would be better to leave the matter as it stands. What is the good of going into a constituency and inviting people to give evidence, if, when the people come forward in a bona fide spirit to give their evidence, and their
evidence is overwhelming, as in the case to which I have referred, the Commissioners give a very apposite decision to all the evidence and the opinions expressed by those who gave the evidence. That is a warning to posterity, but, of course, posterity never takes warnings. Someone has written that we should not bother with that aspect of the question, because what has posterity ever done for us?
I intervened to call attention, as far as I could with your eye upon me, Mr. Dunnico, to the grave electoral scandal and maladministration by Commissioners of their functions, because I take it that Commissioners ought to be like Judges; they ought to be divorced from prejudice and act in a reasonable and impartial spirit. But if Commissioners, like the Feetham Commissioners, do not carry out the will of the people who come before them to give evidence, but act according to the secret instructions given to them by political partisans before they hold these inquiries, this Amendment cannot possibly be of any use.

Major DAVIES: One is surprised that, in spite of the fact that Northern Ireland has been excluded from this Bill, it has given the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) an opportunity to air another grievance. The hon. Member was prevented from developing his theme, but I am sure that the speech can be repeated on another occasion when it will be in order. His warning with regard to possible maladministration of the Commissioners would have come better under a previous Amendment dealing with the procedure in connection with double-member constituencies, where the Commissioners' decisions would be of such importance. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has agreed to accept this Amendment in principle, though I am not quite clear why its rather plain wording has to be reconsidered. I hope the words to be substituted will cover our intentions, because when it is a question of redistributing constituencies mere geographical and administrative conveniences—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is going outside the terms of the Amendment.

Major DAVIES: I was referring to the fact that those who will come to such an
inquiry are actuated, sometimes, by different motives from those considerations which are in the minds of the Commissioners. A change in a constituency touches very closely the sentimental feelings of the people, and it is important that that point of view should be put before the Commissioners right on the spot. I can give an instance from my own experience. Certain parts of my own constituency in Somerset belonged, before the late redistribution, to another constituency, and the people in that corner always regard themselves somewhat as foreigners in my constituency, and go back, sentimentally, to the old organisation and to the old name. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) will bear me out. I instance that to show that voters in a constituency may have a point of view apart from the question of geography or the division of wards. Therefore, I am glad to think it is the intention of the Government to provide for such a point of view to be put forward and to be considered by the Commissioners—perhaps more properly considered than the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, from his bitter experience, would agree will be the case.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am glad that the Under-Secretary has accepted the spirit of the Amendment, and I hope that the real substance of it will be kept carefully in view in the readjustment of the wording. Unless the Commissioners give a fair opportunity for local opinions from every quarter to be expressed, there will be dissatisfaction and disappointment, and we shall cause trouble, and we desire that these changes shall be made as smoothly as possible.

Sir C. RAWSON: I feel that this Amendment might go a little further, and in the alteration which is to be brought up on the Report stage perhaps the hon. Gentleman will see that an opportunity is given to those who reside in contiguous constituencies to attend the inquiry. I have instanced cases where municipal and Parliamentary divisions overlap and you may find a church which is in one municipal division is in another Parliamentary division, and in such cases when they are very hard up for funds people write to the wrong Member of Parliament. That actually happens at the present time.

Mr. LEE: I am rather pleased that the Home Secretary is not accepting the actual wording of this Amendment. Surely the Commissioners will not go to the inquiry without some scheme in their minds; but I take it that under this Amendment they may not have any scheme to submit to the inquiry; and will have to draw it up afterwards, though not being required to take it back to the inquiry later. Surely people ought to have some idea of what the Commissioners are going to do, so that they can express their opinions upon it at the inquiry.

Captain BOURNE: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee), I think, has overlooked the fact that any scheme so prepared is to be laid before Parliament. It is obvious that the Commissioners will have a plan in their heads when they go to the inquiry, but I think the moment of "preparation" comes when the scheme is concluded and laid on the Table of the House. I am very much obliged to the Under-Secretary and to the Home Secretary for their promise to put into the Bill on the Report stage some words which will make it clear that it is the intention that the Commissioners shall hold a local inquiry before they settle the scheme. I think that is the general wish of all hon. Members, except, perhaps, the hon, Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) who has so ingeniously found an opportunity to relieve his feelings regarding the Feetham Commission on an Amendment which has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. In view of the undertaking given by the Home Office, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUTLER: I rise to say emphatically that I should like to see this Clause deleted and double-member constituencies retained as part of our constitutional system. I take this line quite definitely, and I am sure it will he followed by many of those who have a regard for our constitutional past and for the methods on which our Constitution has been built up. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) alluded to posterity, but with
this Bill mopping up all those great attributes which have brought our Constitution to its present position, I feel that we shall appear before posterity as mere scavengers who have created nothing in the place of all that we have taken away. There is nothing constructive in the Bill, only a sapping and mining of the old features of the Constitution. It may be said that the abolition of double-member constituencies was recommended by the Royal Commission of 1910. The report of that Commission has already been criticised in this House, and the fact that we are basing the contents of this Measure upon the recommendations of that Commission can be no inducement to the Committee to accept it. That Commission sat 21 years ago; this Government is so little up to date that, in 1931, it must go back to proposals made in the year 1910 as the foundation for a Bill. If that is typical of the legislation of the present Government, it is not surprising that they, like the institutions which they are attacking, are tottering to their fall.
I defend double-member constituencies on the ground that, for the sake of posterity, we should do something to retain one of the most noble and dignified elements in our Constitution. More than that, if we regarded our electoral system in a reforming and a progressive spirit we should retain double-member constituencies as a basis upon which to bring our electoral system much more up to date. The Alternative Vote has been criticised as not being practicable, and because it is second best, and I maintain that if we retained the double-member constituencies they could be made the basis for a more scientific and more mathematical reform than is provided by the AlternativeVote. Let me remind the Committee of the past history of double-member constituencies. They were retained by Mr. Gladstone in his Bill in 1885. He said:
In many towns there is undoubtedly a unity of municipal life which, except for some great object, it is not desirable to violate or to impair by severance.
They were retained by that great statesman on the ground that there was something in their constitution which was practical. They were retained on an even greater ground, according to the evidence
given before this Royal Commission, the ground of their historical value. That was the main ground upon which Mr. Gladstone retained the remaining double-member constituencies in 1885, and that is the ground on which we ought to consider their retention to-day if we have a regard for building upon the past when creating the future. Double-member constituencies have been the basis of our electoral system in the past, and have only been gradually eaten away by the substitution of single-member constituencies. They were actually introduced by Simon de Montfort in 1265 at a period in our history when our institutions were taking shape. [Laughter.] I often find that references to the past of this country were received by smiles and jeers on the face of the tiger opposite, but I would remind hon. Members that just as Simon de Montfort lived in a great age of reconstruction we also are on the verge of a great era of reconstruction, and that we can well look to the architects of the past for designs for the architecture of the future. Double-member constituencies preserve one of the most historic features of our British electoral system.
I will take some of the objections raised by the Royal Commission in 1910—which is about the date of the Government's awakening—and deal with them one by one. It was said that double-member constituencies would be an anomaly in our system, that one majority would elect two members, that they would be troublesome to party organisers, and so forth. Not only will they not be an anomaly, but if we retain them we may be able to introduce some of the most up-to-date methods of election. It is wrong to say that we cannot use the Alternative Vote in a double-member constituency; by using it, it could be proved that it develops, by a process of growth, into the single transferable vote, and in fact you would then have a group constituency and a method of election which, I believe, would be the most practicable in a large city.
I dare say the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone will consider that I am approaching the precincts of Proportional Representation, and I dare say that you, Mr. Dunnico, will consider that I am rapidly' becoming out of order, but I submit that the argument that because
we could not use the Alternative Vote in double-member constituencies the balance of the Bill would be spoiled does not hold good. There would be a loophole by which Proportional Representation could creep into the Bill without attracting even the rigorous attention of the Chair. If we had these group constituencies and had the system of the Alternative Vote in them we should be approaching something very similar to the system on which university members are elected, which, from my experience, has always seemed the most practical form of election in the country.
There exists very often in a city or town a civic spirit which cannot be broken up. If you represent a south or a west part of a city, you may find that in your representation you are leaving out some great industry, although you may represent many of the workers engaged in that industry because they happen to be voters in your constituency. There are other features of municipal life in a city which go to show that it possesses an entity of its own. We maintain that however satisfactory the Amendment moved from this side of the Committee may have made the proposal in regard to double-member constituencies, those Amendments which have been accepted show that the wisdom of Simon de Montfort is greater than the wisdom of the Home Secretary.
I would like to deal with one or two other objections. It is said that double-member constituencies are troublesome to the party organisers. In considering which is the best electoral system, are we right in perpetually paying so much attention to politicians and party organisations? I have had the privilege of sitting through every Debate on this Bill, and I find that although the continual rising and sitting may be beneficial to one's constitution, this Measure has not the same effect on the constitution of the country. During the whole of that time I have heard no allusion to anything but the politician and the effect the change in our electoral system would have upon the parties. I think we ought to consider what effect it will have upon industry and the general characteristics of the country and its development. Although we find that the abolition of double-member constituencies may distress one or two Mem-
bers, and cause them some inconvenience, although we may find that party chiefs are distressed by their expenses, we should regard these changes more from the point of view of the future setting up of efficient electoral machiney. Other countries have experimented upon these questions with great success, and we are really behind in these matters. In introducing these electoral reforms we are actually going backwards, and, instead of basing our experiments upon the experience of history, we are creating something which will not be a pattern to the world. This House is merely adopting expedients which have been acknowledged to be only the second best. Some of our greatest statemen have defended double-member constituencies and have declared themselves in favour of a system whereby the whole entity of a city is represented rather than that the city should be carved up and parts of it represented in some other constituency. One of the greatest architects of electoral reform was Gambetta, who in France devised the scrutin de liste and the scrutin d'arrondissement. He realised the difference between the countryside and the town in political representation. In the countryside one has need for personal contact with the locality. In a constituency in the countryside there are often great distances to be traversed, and the Divisions are on the whole single entities and call for a single Member. If a city be divided into a double-member constituency; you do not find the same geographical entity in the Division as you do in the countryside. City constituencies with large numbers of voters automatically find very much more satisfactory representation on the principle of Gambetta, the scrutin de liste, because thereby you do not split the civic entity of the district, which is better represented by two Members. For these reasons, I ask the Committee to reject this Clause.

Mr. LANG: The constituency of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives is a double-Member constituency, and is affected by this Clause. I have taken a great deal of care to ascertain the views on this question of members of the political parties in my constituency, and I was rather surprised at the unanimity expressed by the repre-
sentatives of the people in the town in favour of this Clause which would split the constituency into two parts. I am amazed at the suggestion that if my colleague and myself happen to represent two separate parts of the same town, that would really be a great blow to constitutional history, or produce a serious disturbance in our electoral system. The arguments for this Clause are overwhelming. The difficulties of politicians and party organisers are surely entitled to some consideration. If the members of the party opposite are anxious that the electors should know what is their policy, and should have a real opportunity of supporting that policy, then it is perfectly right and proper that their organisers should be given the fullest facilities for seeing that the election is conducted as fairly as possible. It is easier to accomplish that with a central organisation with one Member than it is with two Members for the same constituency.
We have heard a great deal about unholy relations, confusion and misunderstandings at election time, but that, at any rate, would be avoided by the change which is now proposed. There is nothing to prevent a Member saying that he is the Member for North Oldham instead of the whole of the constituency. That would not prevent him from paying attention to representation's from the chamber of commerce or the county council, although he represented only part of the county. Hon. Members opposite who represent county constituencies often represent three or four separate towns with different interests, and totally distinct in culture and views and industry, but, according to the views which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite, those representatives will be placed in a very serious position by this Bill. I gather from what has been said by hon. Members opposite that in the case of double-Member constituencies it will be impossible for them to be properly represented under the system which is now proposed. If that be the ease, I do not know how hon. Members who represent three or four townships are going to do it properly. As most of those constituencies are in the hands of hon. Members opposite, that may be the reason why the representation is so inadequate. I support this Clause as the representative of a double-barrelled constituency.

6.0 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I wish, at the outset, to thank the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) for the very delightful speech which he has just delivered. One of the reasons for introducing this change was that it would make it easier for the minority party to obtain representation. Another reason was the grievance felt by the Liberal majority in not having in the House the representation to which they thought their numbers would entitle them. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that by the policy of dividing double-Member constituencies, you will be debarred from remedying the one grievance which seems to me to be a remote justification for an Electoral Reform Bill. We discussed the question of double-Member constituencies to some extent during the sittings of the Ullswater Conference, and, in spite of the fact that double-Member constituencies would make it easier for minorities to obtain representation, the three-party caucuses were all agreed that on the whole they preferred to have double-Member constituencies. I sit for a single-Member constituency, and I think I prefer that system. On that account, although I appreciate the weight of the arguments urged by my hon. Friend, I would advise him not to press his opposition to the Clause to an actual Division. There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, and that is the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang), who has just made a very interesting speech, declared his horror of anything in the nature of what I think he called an unholy relation. By that I understood him to mean a bargain between two separate parties. I was surprised to hear an hon. Member from those benches making a statement of that kind. Here is a Bill the chief object of which is, by means of the Alternative Vote, to make these bargains quite inevitable in the future, and yet the hon. Member comes here and says that he disapproves of double-Member constituencies, as double-Member constituencies make bargains possible. What better illustration could we have of the complete muddle-headedness that is behind the proposals in this Measure? What better illustration could we have of the completely illogical results that will come about from the Clauses which we are discussing,
and those which we shall be discussing when the Bill is again in Committee? What better reason could we have for saying that a muddle-headed Bill of this kind should certainly not pass this House?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should like to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). His contention was that two-member constituencies lead to bargains, and that bargains will continue when we have the Alternative Vote. I cannot speak for others, but only for myself, and, as far as I am concerned, in my two-member constituency we had no bargain, and I see no reason why it should lead to a bargain, although, of course, there are people who will smell a bargain even when none is there. I think that the case for the abolition of two-member constituencies is overwhelming. In the first place, on the ground of numbers alone, it is really impossible to expect a Member, however conscientious he is, to cater for 80,000 electors, as I do, or 126,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton does. It does not merely mean that all the people of his own political persuasion come to him, but it means that everyone has two shots. In my constituency, be comes first of all to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and, when my hon. Friend cannot do anything for him, he comes to me; or it may be the other way about. Therefore, we are perpetually harassed and worried, and, as everybody knows, the 12 Members or so who represent these double-barrelled constituencies are the most hard-working Members in the House.
There is another reason, and that is that the election tends to be fought in a very frivolous manner. I suppose I had at least 5,000 questions as to what a particular voter ought to do with his second vote. I always replied that he should use his common sense. If I had said to them, "Vote Conservative," every Liberal Member in the county would have sent up a howl, because every Conservative opponent of a Liberal candidate would have said to the Liberal voters, "Don't worry; vote for me; don't vote for the Member for East Norfolk." On the other hand, if one gave one's advice the other way, one would be equally "in the cart." Therefore, to the 5,000 questions or so that I had, the only satisfactory answer
that I could find to give them was, "If I were you I would give it a rest over Whitsun." The result of that kind of thing is that one gets a more or less frivolous election, and does not discuss some of the big points. On the grounds of numbers and of convenience, and on the general ground that all political parties in these constituencies are in favour of this change, I am very glad that the Government have put this Clause in the Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I do not think it is necessary for me to say much with regard to this Clause, but I should like very much to say to the hon. Member for' Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) that I greatly enjoyed his speech, and I envy his historical knowledge and delightful flow of language. The object of this Clause is to carry out the intention of, Clause 1 of the Bill. The Alternative Vote cannot be applied successfully in two-member constituencies, and, therefore, apart from all the other disadvantages which two-member constituencies may have, for the purpose of this Bill it is necessary to have this Clause in order to provide machinery for dividing up the, two-member constituencies, so that the Alternative Vote may operate properly in those areas. The other arguments which have been brought forward, particularly by those who sit for two-member constituencies, would all be very cogent if the matter were being discussed apart altogether from the Alternative Vote, but, in view of the fact that it is a necessary part of the machinery, and in view of the indications which have been given by various hon. Members, I think it is unnecessary for me to detain the Committee further.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I agree with this Clause, and, as representing what I prefer to term a double-member constituency rather than a double-barrelled constituency, I think we are only doing justice by removing this out-of-date system from the several constituencies in this country where it is now in operation. The fact that we are agreed as to the Alternative Vote leaves an opportunity for the electors, should they so choose, to show a preference for one candidate as against another. There is no doubt that there are difficulties in connection with double-member con-
stituencies as they stand now. The matter depends, of course, to some extent upon whether their representation is exactly on the same lines or along the same party proclivities, but, in the case of a single-member constituency, the gentleman or lady who happens to represent it is clearly and distinctly a representative of a given position and a given party, so that those who may approach him or her are able to do so without any complications arising. On the whole, although I think that the Government have taken this step in circumstances of a peculiar nature, to which we have referred on a former occasion, we have to judge the matter on its merits, and I think that in this respect we are doing the right thing.

Captain BOURNE: In spite of the fact that various Members of the House who sit for two-member or double-barrelled constituencies seem to be unanimous in desiring to shed their colleagues with the utmost possible speed, I cannot help agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) in regretting the passing away of the last vestige of the old system of election in this country. As my hon. Friend said, when Parliament originally started, not only the boroughs, but also the counties, were each represented by two Members, and I, for one, regret that the passing of this Bill will bring to an end that very old historic situation. I regret it the more in the case of the boroughs, because I feel that there is a very strong civic conscience in most of our boroughs in England, and I think that that is not anything like so strong when a borough is divided artificially, largely from geographical and numerical considerations, and that it makes a real cleavage which it will be very hard to repair. I do not think that in such a case the two Members sitting for different parts of the borough will have quite the same historical sense which they at present enjoy as the representatives of an undivided community.
There are one or two other questions which arise out of this Clause, and on which the Solicitor-General did not touch. The first point on which I should like to ask him a question is with regard to Sub-section (3). As far as I can understand Sub-section (3), it will mean
this: Supposing that this Measure receives the Royal Assent and goes on to the Statute Book, the Commissioners will be set up; but supposing also that a General Election takes place before the Commissioners have completed their work, then, as I read Sub-section (3), you might have one or two boroughs divided, and thus having two Members elected under the Alternative Vote, while the remaining boroughs might remain two-member constituencies not having the Alternative Vote. It may be that this Clause is put in in order to enable a Dissolution to be taken immediately or very soon after the passing of the Act. I also conclude, for other reasons, that the Government intend to carry out the regular constitutional practice, which is that, if the basis of the system of election is altered, or if there is a redistribution of seats, there is an immediate appeal to the country; because, as far as I can see, there is no machinery whatever under this Clause to deal with one of these two-member constituencies should a by-election arise.
I want also to put this point to the Solicitor-General. Unless there is to be a Dissolution, it will be quite easy for the Commissioners to divide up the boroughs into two parts, but the existing Members have been elected for the entire constituency, and, in the event of one of them either dying or resigning, on what principle would the half constituency be allotted? No provision for that has been made, and I can only conclude that it has been deliberately left out because the Government intend to follow the old constitutional practice, and, if this Bill becomes an Act, to go to the country with all the speed possible.

Sir C. RAWSON: I should like to emphasise one point that was put by the Solicitor-General. I was surprised that he did not make more of it. I dislike this Bill—I had nearly said "this rotten Bill"—but, if we have to have it at all we must have Clause 2, because of the difficulties in double-member constituencies. In my constituency at the last election we had six candidates. There were 126,000 electors, and there was cross-voting of about 20 different kinds. It is true that at the last election two Liberal candidates forfeited their deposits, and may not fight again, but, if you have six candi-
dates under the Alternative Vote, there will be endless confusion, and cross-voting in 40 or 50 ways, which will make the position even less understandable than it is at the present time. Therefore, if we are bound to have the Bill—I hope we shall not—we are bound to have Clause 2.

Mr. RAYNES: One point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), and also by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford City (Captain Bourne), was with regard to the destruction of civic spirit if the double-member constituencies are taken away and single divisons are created in their place. From the arguments used by both hon. Members it would appear as though we are about to take away the last remains of civic spirit in this country. Surely, there is civic spirit existing in other boroughs than those which have double-member constituencies, but the arguments of the hon. Members seemed to imply that that is not the case, and that it is only in double-member constituencies that any civic spirit really exists.
Gladstone has been quoted as speaking in 1885 in favour of the retention of double-member constituencies because of the necessity for retaining civic spirit. I would ask the two hon. Members whether they really believe there is less civic spirit in Sheffield, Leeds or Bradford than there is in Preston, Bolton, Oldham or Derby? Does the question whether a borough has single-member constituencies or a double-member constituency have any effect at all in regard to the retention of civic spirit? I speak from 20 years' experience as a member of a civic authority, and as one who is anxious to retain civic spirit, and, if I felt that the division of these boroughs into single-member constituencies would rob them of civic spirit, I should be inclined to range myself on the side of hon. Members opposite and oppose this Clause. But I do not and cannot believe for one moment that that is the case. Civic spirit does exist, and we are glad to recognise it, in all our great towns and cities in this country, and the division of these double-member constituencies into single divisions is not going to rob them of civic spirit in the slightest degree.
The hon. Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson) spoke of the great difficulty,
and, indeed, the practical impossibility, of retaining the double-member constituency with the Alternative Vote, and I quite agree with him. It has been my experience in the borough of Derby on more than one occasion to fight elections where we have had five candidates for two seats, and 15 different ways of voting. The difficulty is certainly great enough in a contest of that kind, but what would it be with the double-member constituencies retained and the Alternative Vote adopted? The thing would become practically impossible or, at all events, extremely difficult. I feel that, in doing away with the last remaining double-member constituencies—I wish we were taking the City of London as well—we are putting the business of electing Members to this House on an equal footing in every constituency, we are coming to an equal and fair basis, and as for the destruction of the civic spirit, or the creating of any kind of faction or division inside these double-member constituencies, we shall be doing nothing of the kind. Members have need to fear nothing whatever with regard to the destruction of any municipal understanding. It is true that I was hoping to see the scope of the Bill enlarged so that divisions outside the double-member constituencies should be so far entrenched upon as to make the present double-member divisions take in the whole of the municipal area. That intention of mine was put forward in order to maintain the civic spirit, but the division of the borough inside itself will not, in my opinion, interfere with civic spirit in the slightest degree.

Lord ERSKINE: I hope that before we leave the consideration of the Clause we shall have an answer to the very important question that has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), namely, in the double-member constituencies, if there is no immediate dissolution after the passing of the Act, what is to happen in case one Member dies, or applies for the Chiltern Hundreds, or is no longer able to continue functioning as a Member of the House? It seems to be a point which has been rather left out, and something may have to be put in on Report to guard against an eventuality of that kind.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Subsection (3).

Lord ERSKINE: Sub-section (3), in my view, does not cover a case of that sort, and I think the Government are aware of that fact.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is really covered by Sub-section (2). Although, of course, there will be ample time for this Commission to sit before the dissolution of this Parliament and give full consideration to the scheme, provision is made in Sub-section (2). The Houses of Parliament have to adopt the scheme, and then it shall take effect as from the dissolution of the Parliament next following its adoption. So that it cannot come into force until a dissolution.

Lord ERSKINE: thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, which I am sure will be entirely satisfactory to the Committee. On the general question, it seems to have been assumed by the last speaker that we are opposed to the Clause passing into law. It is true that some of us are, but a great many of us regard it as one of the few good Clauses in what we otherwise believe to be a singularly bad Bill. I was interested in listening to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who made such an excellent speech. If I followed his argument correctly, he desired to see the double-Member constituencies remain because of their historical past, because he was afraid the civic sense would be lost if they were divided up, but lastly and, perhaps, from my own point of view most unfortunately, because it would be far easier, if we retained them, to found thereon a system of Proportional Representation. I object strongly to Proportional Representation and, for that reason alone, I should perhaps be more inclined, after hearing the hon. Member's speech, to support this Clause than to vote in favour of the retention of double-Member constituencies.
The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) talked about bargaining, and my right hon. Friend below me rather pulled him up for that. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) seemed to go a great deal further. He said that during his election he had no fewer than 5,000 questions from various people asking how they should give their second vote. We were arguing yesterday that the adoption of the Alternative
Vote would lead to bargaining, and we were informed by Members who are in favour of it that no such intention was in their mind. I think the remarks of the hon. Members for Oldham and Norwich have shown that in future we are going to get rather more bargaining under the system that it is proposed to insert than we have had in the past. I do not propose to oppose the Clause. I think, on the whole, it is one of the best Clauses in the Bill, and I believe the vast majority of Members desire to do away with double-Member constituencies, although there are very strong historical and sentimental arguments in favour of their being retained. Nevertheless, I think the arguments against their retention are stronger. They are huge, unwieldy and extremely expensive, and for those reasons I believe this Clause should be passed into law.

Sir JOSEPH McCONNELL: In 1920 I was a member of the committee that came to this House to consult with the Ulster Members. We met a great many Ministers and, after a great deal of pressure, we got their assurance that, if we would agree to the settlement that was made at that time, the Ulster question would never arise again. It has been raised this week in this House. We have present this evening perhaps the greatest campaigner we have ever had in Ireland. When he started his campaign in Ireland he made the welkin ring, and we almost heard the vibrations in this House. Above all, in his own constituency there has been more activity shown in the matter than in any other constituency in Ulster. I do not wish to take up more of the time of the Committee, as I know that I am indulging on its patience and am entirely out of order.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Abolition of business premises qualification for registration except in the City of London.)

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): The first Amendment I call is the third on the Paper, the only Amendment not put forward from the Opposition side of the House. This raises the whole substance of Clause 3. Consequently I will allow a discussion of the whole Clause,
on the condition that there shall be a Division on the Amendment, and then a Division that the Clause stand part.

Mr. OLIVER BALDWIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out the words "other than the City of London."
Some of us who were in the House at the introduction of the Bill must have been very interested to see how the business premises qualification was to be abolished in every single constituency in the country except when it referred to the City of London. We are used on this side to see the City of London ruling the Treasury but, when we find it interfering with the Home Office, it makes some of us a little apprehensive, and we wondered why it was that it should have been made an exception. The only excuse we had was one of tradition, expressed in rather an interesting fashion by the Home Secretary. But in this Clause there is something more important and, I think, more dangerous. In London to-day you have two Members representing a total electorate of 37,000. If you allow them to choose between the business qualification and a vote in their own homes, very likely a great many will choose their own homes, and that will bring down the total electorate to even less than it is to-day. I have tried to find out what the business vote is. I am told it is about 10,000 or more. If you cut that out you get 27,000 voters returning two Members to Parliament.
There is another point which seems to me to open a loophole which it will be equally difficult to close. Suppose a business man lives at Brighton, or some distance away from the City, and he has to choose, because he will only have one vote. I do not suggest that it will be done with any evil intent, but it will be very difficult to prevent him from voting twice—once in the City and once for his home. The only way you can prevent it is by the registrar in London communicating with the different registrars in every constituency in which business voters have their homes. That seems to me to be a loophole which certainly ought to be closed. I do not consider that there is any particular reason for making a long speech about this, because the business qualification seems to me to be a prerogative which is given without any bearing on the democratic idea of
the main part of the Bill. When it is a question of accepting tradition as a reason for the City of London keeping the business qualification, I was interested enough to look up and find out what this tradition was. I thought, Is it the tradition that there have always been two Members for the City of London or is it the tradition that the City of London is the oldest borough that has ever returned Members to Parliament?
I find that both are at fault. In the Parliaments of 1290, 1295 and 1296 no members for the City of London were returned at all, whereas there were members returned for any number of other boroughs, including five in Cornwall alone. In 1298 there came two London Members. It may be of interest to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that in the 1306 Parliament, when a certain gentleman called Ricardus Short was Member for Bath, there was no London Member. In 1322 there were four London Members returned. That was an interesting Parliament because it had in it a certain important man called Thomas de Shave as Member for Chichester. In 1396 there were four London Members, one of whom was Hugo Short, and in 1427 there were four London Members. If we are to rest upon tradition in regard to the number of Members, why do we not have four Members for the City of London instead of two? I cannot see that tradition in a democratic Bill is really the right way in which to appeal to this House to-day.
I was very much surprised at the speech made by the Home Secretary. If he is afraid to touch tradition which concerns the City of London which has been going on since 1298, he will find it much more difficult to touch the tradition of capitalism which has been going on a good deal longer. I have no reason to press the point, because I cannot see how anybody with any idea of logic or feeling for democracy can possibly allow the City of London to hold this extraordinary position. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, and, later on, if the Clause is not quite right in that respect, put the Clause upon a proper, sensible and democratic basis.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Measure is contrary to the traditions of the House, and, that being the case, I do no see why there should be a special exception made in favour of the City of London. I know that one may talk about London being the greatest city in the world and say that its business representatives are very important individuals, but a great many of us in other parts of the country do not accept that estimate. If London is regarded as the greatest city in the world, some of us would like to put in an adjective and refer to it as the greatest parasitical city in the world. As representing a Division of no mean city where a great deal of useful work is carried on, I certainly do not intend being a party to giving exceptional treatment to the City of London. The fact has to be taken into account that the interests of the City of London are always in conflict with the main interests of the party which sits on these benches and is represented by the present Government. I remember the Prime Minister making a statement in America to the effect that there were a few men who could make the work of a Labour Government impossible and that he expected them to play the game. I think he was referring possibly to the representatives of those financial interests which are represented in the City of London. It may be said that the argument in favour of those financial interests having a certain amount of representation in this House is that they wield so much influence. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) evidently feels that that is a sound proposition.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I did not intend to encourage the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the action of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to know that it was possibly something more in the nature of St. Vitus' dance than acceptance of the argument that I was putting forward. I did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the argument. It may be said that because those financial interests are so great and have so powerful an influence upon Governments of all descriptions in this House, it is as well that there should be direct representation of them by the retention of this franchise. I do not
think so at all. I cannot understand how a Government representing Socialist interests in this country can for one minute on antiquarian, or any other ground, agree to this sort of thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "On Liberal grounds."] Liberal grounds are antiquarian grounds. I do not think that the qualification is necessary. I do not see why for antiquarian reasons we should have representatives in this House able to exercise an influence in preventing the Government of the day from carrying out the policy for which they had been elected. I hope that when the Division is taken the special treatment which it is proposed to give to the City of London will be rejected by the Committee, and that the business people in great industrial centres and the business people in the City of London will be put into exactly the same position. The business people in Glasgow, Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, and other industrial centres are just as important members of the community and have just as much right to be consulted. They should be consulted as citizens having the ordinary franchise. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, and that we are not going to have any great financial interests placed in a position of privilege. If the Committee accept the Amendment, it will be an indication that we are going to look forward to a franchise which will be equal for all citizens in the community.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I do not know if there is universal dislike here of the City man or of the City of London, but we all have a grudge against the British climate, and, if Members of the Committee are unable to hear me, they must put it down to the same disease from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and many others are suffering. Many things spoken by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) at the first flush are sound and reasonable, but the present Government have given this matter careful thought, and I understand that the Cabinet, speaking as a Cabinet, were in favour of this Clause. We must realise that that means either a unanimous Cabinet or a majority of the Cabinet. We have heard in the last week not only the Secretary of State for War, but the Minister of Health and the Home Secretary, all speaking with an amount of sentiment which we should not have
expected perhaps from those three right hon. Members with their different natures. The Secretary of State for War specially spoke of the sentimental side. There is real reason why this House should think of the City of London with sentiment and with great feelings of gratitude.
No party in this House is as full of sentiment or as particular about tradition as the party to which hon. Members on the opposite side belong. I notice that the Home Secretary referred to very early times in the history of this Island. If we go back only three centuries to the time of the Stuarts, to the very picturesque story of the five members, I think we must feel that in those days, when kings were all-powerful, the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs and the Common Council and the common people in the City of London all showed considerable pluck in the attitude that they adopted when the King went there. There was a great glamour about the King, and that particular King, especially, thought that he would "put it over" when he went down there. He must have been abnormally stupid, but when he heard the City talk to him, a King, as they did, he was—I think we know he was now—a fool as well as a knave not to take his lesson. But only 20 or 25 years afterwards when that King had been succeeded by the Great Protector, as he was called, who in his later years became a great oppressor, it was due to the City of London that Monk realised that the Rump, as the old Parliament here was called, was impossible and that the Army should no longer have the power to rule this country. It was the City that encouraged Monk here to reestablish Parliamentary Government. It was the great uncle of the late Minister of Education, Lord Macaulay, who said that it was the City that had saved England. It was the City again that saved Parliament after the Great Protector had died having failed in his duty. In the 18th century we find the same thing happening. Parliament was venial, and the City of London was the one place in the country that was powerful enough to stand up against the King and Parliament. It was the City of London alone which retained the great traditions of government in the Middle Ages and the honesty of municipal government. This Chamber or rather his predecessor was in the pay of one party or the other, it was
full of nominees, and yet the City of London held the standard higher and brighter than any other in public life. For these reasons I think the Cabinet to-day were justified in giving certain privileges to the City.
Then we pass to the last century and this. Perhaps they are too close to us for us really to visualise whether the conduct of great men and great institutions has all been to the good. I know that it has been said that certain people in the City have abused their trust. That has always been the case and that will always be the case, but I believe that those people have been very few. Nothing that has occurred in the scandals about which we have read in the newspapers in the last two years has persuaded me that the City of London has not got a very high average code of honesty. I do not think that hon. Members on the other side of the House will disbelieve that. If I may refer once again to the five members, we know what their record was before they went to take refuge in the City. They were men who played a great part in public life. They went to the City when they were in danger, and they were protected there.
I look at the hon. Members opposite who are the sponsors for the Amendment, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. O. Baldwin), the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Brockway), the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Sandham) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett). They are what I may call a young body. They are men of a new party, a body of young men, animated, it may be, by the finest principles. If they are to advance those principles and they make mistakes they will pay for them. If a dictator, an autocrat from Whitehall comes here and demands their heads or their bodies, and they go to the City, and the City believes that there is something right in their thesis although they have nothing to do with it—I am not trying to bribe their party—I believe that the City would be as staunch in holding up to its old traditions as it was in the time of Charles I.
I would remind the House that the Corporation of the City, of which I am not a member, has managed the square mile
as well as any other municipality is managed, and that it sets a high standard of what the public life of a great city ought to be. In regard to that portion of the City which I represent, I admit that the hon. Member was justified in saying that our electors are very few in numbers, but if the voters I represent are few in number, it is the mistake of the arrangements at present in operation. I see that the hon. Member for Dudley agrees with that. The population of the City of London to-day is as great as in the time of Charles I and Charles II. A few years ago, I think in 1881, the last census before the last Reform Act, the population was about 250,000. It was about 350,000 at the time of the last census, and it is probably 400,000 to-day. There are 400,000 people working in the City in the day time, and possibly 40,000, 30,000 or 20,000 sleeping there. I can see no reason why the great interests of the City, which are your interests, and which employ 300,000 or 400,000 people every day in the City, should not be represented, and why those 400,000 people, working eight hours a day in the City, should not have a vote for those eight hours, just as would 400,000 people who sleep for eight hours in another constituency and travel to and from their constituency during the third eight hours of the day. I consider that the Government are doing a wise thing in leaving this vote in the City of London. Probably they cannot concede it to any other city, but if they are to give it to any city, I think the City of London is justified in retaining it.

Mr. CLYNES: It may be of some advantage to the Committee if I say a few words at this point to explain the views of the Government towards the City. We were not unmindful, as I indicated in what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, of the historical considerations which have their roots in tradition when we had to decide our attitude on this matter. Our decision was reached also because we faced facts and realities, and the facts and realities as they are now, are these, that if this Amendment were carried, and we tried to treat the City, as is suggested by the Amendment, like other constituencies in the country, we should still leave the City unlike any other place in respect of our electoral system. If the Amendment were carried,
the City would be left in a position unlike that of any other city in the country, and so far as I can see, we could not put it right in this Bill. It was not so much a question of making a virtue of necessity as that we made an exception because of necessity.
We recognised what is behind the very moving speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell). The City has its place in the Empire, and the prosperity and well-being of the City is very frequently reflected in the prosperity and well-being of the people. During the lifetime of the present Government, the City, consisting very largely of people who, in the main, differ profoundly from us, have shown their breadth of view by the welcome that they have extended even to the leaders of the Liberal party, and by the honour that they have conferred upon them, because they represent a tradition and sentiment and a very impartial and broadminded view.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Liberal party?

Mr. CLYNES: I meant the Labour party.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said the Liberal party.

Mr. CLYNES: I think the argument applies in the case of the Liberal party as in the case of the Conservative or the Labour party. The position that would be left if this Amendment were carried would be this, that you would have two constituencies in place of one, and in each of these Constituencies you would have only an electorate of about 5,000 persons. As the average electorate of the country runs to about 50,000, can it be said that there would be nothing anomalous if the Amendment were carried? It is necessary to preserve the business premises qualification in the City, otherwise the electorate would be confined to a few thousand shopkeepers and caretakers. But it would not be right to allow any voter in the City to vote in two places, or to vote twice in any sense of the term. That is not necessary for the purpose of maintaining definite City representation of the kind that has for so long persisted.
I said on the Second Reading as much as I desired to say on the broad ques-
tion of the evils and the inequalities of plural voting. I hope that that part of this Clause will not be lost sight of in the discussion which is to take place between now and half-past 10 to-night. We had to choose between evils, and we believe that we have chosen the lesser. It was not that we desired to place the City in a privileged position. It would be placed in a privileged position if this Amendment were carried. Having to choose, we have chosen what may be regarded as something inequitable. I admit that it is inequitable, but it is harmless, and it affords to the Government and to the Committee a lesser degree of trouble than the trouble that would accrue if the Committee passed the Amendment. In the view of the Government, in these circumstances and the facts which I have recited, it is essential to leave this matter to a free vote of the House, so that Members may have freedom to express whatever opinion they have formed from the arguments addressed to them during the course of the Debate.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was going to explain frankly the facts of the situation. He made no attempt whatever, even in his concluding sentence, to explain the inexplicable decision of the Government to leave to a free vote of the Committee a matter on which the Government has not only expressed its view so strongly but in regard to which it has shown that the result of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to produce an absurd and impossible situation. No Government ever has the right to leave to a free vote a matter in which the acceptance of an Amendment would produce an impossible situation. Indeed, in his speech on the Second Reading the Home Secretary said that it was inconceivable that the City should not be represented. Now, he thinks it perfectly logical to leave, to a free vote the question of whether an inconceivable thing should be carried out by the Government's own supporters. In view of the attitude of the Government in refusing a free vote on another subject yesterday, when opinion was much more divided, its readiness to run away from its own arguments and its own obligations is a lamentable indication of the fact, of which the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton
(Mr. W. J. Brown) reminded the House not long ago, that "they have not the guts to govern."
The defence of the City vote is based on two main considerations, one being the consideration which the Home Secretary advanced in his speech on Second Reading and which was strengthened by the moving and interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), the argument that the City of London is a great historic community which has rendered services to Parliament and to the nation and which it is worth while preserving as a community and representing. That is an argument of immense weight. But the City of London is not the only historic community in this country. The hon. Member, who moved the Amendment, pointed out that there are other great boroughs in this country which were represented in Parliaments even earlier than the City of London. Certainly, I would suggest to the Committee that the great business centres, the great communities of business men in other parts of the country, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, groups of men to whose creative effort, to whose brain work and to whose industry is due the existence of the whole of the population of those centres—[interruption]. But for the brains of those men, the working-classes who live around them would never have come into existence. Those historic communities are just as much entitled to representation as the City of London. I should like to say a word about the great community which I have the honour to represent in Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary for the right hon. Member to go into the argument for extending the double-member constituency. Any arguments must be confined to the constituencies in the Schedule.

Mr. AMERY: No, I was not doing that. I was arguing for the retention of the business vote on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." In that connection, I would point out that the city of Birmingham, ever since the days when its citizens rough-handled Rupert's Cavaliers 300 years ago, has had a great Parliamentary tradition, a tradition created and sus-
tained by the Birmingham business community.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is not the Amendment referring to the City of London? Is it in order to deal with the whole country?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member was apparently not in the House when I pointed out that this Amendment relating to London raised the whole question of business representation, and, that being the subject of the Clause, we are going to discuss on it the whole Clause and take two votes.

Mr. TOOLE: Is not the right bon. Gentleman making out that Birmingham is more important than the City of London?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see why he should not do that.

Mr. AMERY: I was pointing out that Birmingham had this historic tradition and that it is the business men of Birmingham to whose initiative and energy is due the fact that Birmingham in the very earliest days stood in the forefront of municipal progress and life in this country. It is now proposed under this Clause that that community, whose whole life is interwoven with the city of Birmingham, whose activities are conducted in Birmingham and who contribute to make Birmingham what it is, should be deprived of their vote as citizens of Birmingham. The changes that have come about in our social life have led to the fact that most of them, while they carry on their active work and civic work within the confines of Birmingham, do sleep and spend their week-ends in the more outlying constituencies. They may sleep in Warwickshire or Worcestershire or further afield, but they are emphatically citizens of Birmingham, and it is as citizens of Birmingham that they are to be disfranchised by this Clause.
The other consideration which the Home Secretary pleaded to-day, now following it to its logical conclusion, was that the removal of the business franchise of the City of London would reduce it to an absurd constituency of a few thousand caretakers and charwomen. It would no longer be a residential, but purely a residual constituency, a con-
stituency without any meaning or purpose in its representation in this country. In a large measure the same would be true of the central business districts in our other great cities, where the whole character, the whole meaning of those constituencies would be altered if you took away the business vote, the votes of those whose energies give those constituencies their meaning. It is, after all, communities and interests that are represented in this House. This nation, of which Parliament should be the mirror, is something more than an aggregate of 20,000,000 odd electors grouped for convenience sake into a number of constituencies. It is something more; it is a complex structure organised in many ways, containing many interests, many individual communities, many historic communities, each of which has its own character, each of which has its contribution to make to Parliament. It is because that contribution is to be diminished by this Clause and by the Amendment now under discussion, that we object both to the Amendment and to the Clause itself.
The whole object with which our system of Parliament has been developed steadily and consistently was that all interests, all classes, should secure reasonable representation and have a reasonable voice and influence in this House, in order that it should be the true reflex and interpreter of the nation. That used to be secured fairly effectively in the latter half of the last century with one qualification, that at that time the working-class itself, the class of manual labour, a great and important element in the community, was not effectively represented. That was undoubtedly a defect, and that defect was fully remedied by recent extensions of the franchise. But, in providing a remedy, we have run into the grave risk of destroying the character of the system itself. Manual labour, important as it is, is after all only one element, one function in the life of the nation, and it would be entirely contrary to any true interpretation of democracy if that one element should by its numerical majority occupy a preponderating position in the House of Commons. That would not be democracy, but class rule. It would be a Government of privilege in the hands of a pure numerical majority.
It is essential that other interests should be represented. Unfortunately there is a grave danger that under present conditions, with the immense growth of urban aggregations and with the dispersal and dissemination of important elements of the community in other constituencies and with their relative numerical insignificance, there is a real danger that these vital elements in the nation may not be secured effective representation. In order to meet that danger, you must have some remedy, some alternative device other than the system of flat geographical representation, to prevent these elements being completely submerged. That was the point of view from which Parliament in 1918, with the consent of all parties, preserved to the business community the double vote given to those who were in possession of business premises. That vote does secure at any rate some measure of representation by function as well as by residence.
One of my hon. Friends pointed out on Second Reading that that is the problem which increasingly occupies the attention of students of the whole question of representation and which underlies both the system of government in Soviet Russia to-day and the new system of Parliamentary representation in Fascist Italy. I believe that the demand for such functional representation will increase. When the time for increasing it comes, we may no doubt be able to improve upon the mere rough and ready system of the vote by occupation of business premises. Until then it should be retained as a necessary corrective to the mere geographical vote, not as a mere survivor of a past era of privilege, but rather as a beginning of a future and more scientific system of election and representation in accordance with function and capacity as well as in accordance with geographical residence.
I know that right hon. and hon. Members object to anyone having more than one vote. With that I entirely and totally disagree. The Home Secretary said that this Clause, in particular, was the completion of a great process inaugurated a century ago by the Reform Act. The Reform Act and the whole of the process of development since never had as its object to give everyone, re-
gardless of function and qualifications, an equal voice. That is not true democracy. The true object of any Parliamentary system is to ensure that government shall be carried on efficiently and justly in the interests of the whole nation and of every class and with the consent and approval of every class and every section. To secure that, it is undoubtedly desirable that no important section shall be omitted. But that does not mean that everyone shall have an equal say.
The Home Secretary described the property qualification as an anomaly that cannot be justified on any reasonable grounds. I want to know on what reasonable grounds can anyone justify the anomaly that a great Empire, a great country, should be governed by the mere counting of noses. It can be governed only in the last resort by capacity, and human capacity will always be a thing of inequality. Men are not equal; they never will be equal, and they never ought to be equal. Variety and eminence are the essential conditions of all progress. That is a fundamental law of nature. From that point of view, I have no hesitation in saying that the only natural system of voting is one which, while assigning some voice, some right, in the affairs of the country to every citizen, will also give due consideration to differences of function exercised and differences of capacity to exercise them. So far from apologising for the plural vote, I believe in it, and I believe that we shall see it greatly extended in this country.
The Bill is based on a fundamental inconsistency. The object of this Clause, and the one which is to follow, is to wipe away all differences and reduce us to a flat numerical system of geographical constituencies, and yet the first Clause is an attempt to get away from the impossible and difficult situation in which that system may land us. It professes to make the attempt, but it is entirely unsuccessful. At any rate, the attempt there is to find a remedy, and no doubt it will have to be found. It may be that Proportional Representation will yet provide it, but I am inclined to believe that it may be found even more successfully by retaining our present system of election, and adding to that basis of purely geographical constituencies additional votes for special functions and for special pur-
poses. I have no doubt that we shall need to overhaul our electoral system, and it may have to be accompanied by an overhaul of our procedure in this House, but when it comes it will require far more serious consideration than has been given to it, in the present jumble of what an hon. Friend of mine called the worn-out records of an out-of-date gramophone.
There is one thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. In no speech made on the other side of the House during the Second Reading or to-day has there been any allusion to the background under which we are discussing this Measure. The object of the Clause and the Amendment, quite frankly, is to diminish the influence and voice of industry and commerce in the affairs of the nation, and this at a time when commerce and industry is in a more difficult position than it has ever been. Surely it is a time when we want more guidance from those who are running our commerce and finance, and for that reason I hope we shall reject the Clause and the Amendment.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is 100 years almost to the day since Lord John Russell introduced the great Reform Bill. It was hotly opposed, and if any of the spirits of those who were the opponents of that great Reform Bill still hover about this building, how cordial must the welcome have been to the speech which has just been delivered. We have had a speech, a whiff, not merely of the last generation—

Mr. AMERY: Of the coming generation.

Sir H. SAMUEL: But of the early nineteenth century. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) says that we are not to be governed by the counting of noses. After all, each nose has a brain behind it. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to count? He proposes to count business premises. That is to be the basis upon which this country is to be governed. He has discussed what is true democracy and has endeavoured to persuade the Committee that true democracy is precisely identical with class privilege. He claims, indeed, while he is repeating the shibboleths of the Toryism
of 100 years ago, that he is really the precursor of the new philosophy of the future, that of the Fascisti and the Soviets, who would base the whole of the electoral system on functions. They hold that we are no longer to base our electoral system upon geographical areas, but upon economic divisions and trade functions. So far as that new philosophy of politics is concerned I am in entire disagreement with it on the merits.
I do not think that elections or citizenship should be based upon merely one side of a man's life, his economic side, or that people should be divided according to their occupations as though that were the whole of their life. The man is more than his work, and it is as a human being, as a citizen, that he should vote, not merely as belonging to one occupation or another. But we are not concerned with that to-day. If we were now debating an entire recasting of our whole political system and basing it upon new constituencies, not upon areas or mere equal human citizenship but upon particular colleges of electors, consisting of the workmen of one trade and the workmen in another, professional men, or men in a commercial occupation, we could discuss that on its merits. But that is not the proposal. The proposal is that one particular function shall be selected—business—and that the business man shall be given two votes while others who may be of value to the State, who are professional men or working men, must have no such privilege.
The right hon. Gentleman who is one of the distinguished representatives of a great city, says that every day there are coming in and out business men who work in the city and live in a dormitory constituency outside; but they are not the only people who come in and out of the City of Birmingham. The workmen of Birmingham, do not they help to build up the greatness and the wealth of that community, and how is it possible to defend a law which will say that the business man coming and going in his first class carriage shall have two votes and the workman coming and going in the third class carriage is to have no such privilege? We have stood always for the principle of one man one vote and we shall cordially
support the Government at this stage, and at every stage, in defending that principle. There is before the Committee not only this large issue which affects some half-million privileged voters who now retain this special franchise, which should have been abolished generations ago—it is a most belated proposal—but there is also a minor and special case which we are discussing, the case of the City of London. With regard to that question plural voting does not arise.
If it were proposed that the electors of the City of London by retaining their special constituency should also retain the privilege of having two votes we should all strongly oppose it, but that is not the proposal. The proposal is that they should have one vote and shall have the right of choosing whether they would exercise it in the place where they reside or in the City. I have said that this is not a point to which we attach any strong feeling one way or the other, and if a free vote is granted to the Government party a free vote will also be exercised by members of the opposition party. For my own part I think there is a case to be made out on historical grounds and tradition for the City of London and its position in the long annals of this country. The Home Secretary said that the Labour Government was perhaps influenced by the further consideration, the broad mindedness shown by the City Corporation in granting the high honour of its freedom to the leaders of the present Government. I always suspected that perhaps the City took the Chancellor of the Exchequer to its bosom for fear of having him at its throat.

Mr. CLYNES: I need not say that the Government in their attitude on this Clause have not been influenced by what has been done by the City of London. I merely pointed it out as an instance of the broad-mindedness of the City in relation to all parties.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Government were influenced by the fact that the City was broad-minded, and its broad-mindedness was most happily shown by conferring the Freedom of the City on the leaders of the present Government. The City is remarkably broad-minded. Considering what was the attitude of the City towards the Prime Minister and
Chancellor of the Exchequer during the War and soon after, it is proof of the general tolerance of opinion, and especially that of the City, that they should have conferred their signal honour after so short en interval. I am not complaining of it. All these sentimental considerations may be allowed to enter if no substantial harm is done to the working of our electoral system and if no definite privilege is conferred upon any class of electors. For these reasons, although I confess not without considerable doubt, I shall vote in defence of this special pro vision. If the Amendment is carried and the City of London is omitted various consequential Amendments will have to be made in the Bill, but there will be time enough to consider them should the occasion arise.

Mr. ALPASS: A criticism has been levelled against this Bill which so far as my constituents are concerned is entirely unfounded. The statement has been made that no mandate has been given to the Government for this Measure. The issue of the plural vote was raised during the election campaign in my division because it affected many people in the division very vitally. Being a democrat I believe that this House should reflect the will of the people as perfectly as possible, combined with the efficient working of the Parliamentary machine. Under the present system, no one can suggest that that object is realised, and I desire to speak of the effect of the plural vote in my own division. I have the honour of representing in this House the business part of the large City of Bristol. It combines not only the business section, but also has very important industrial elements within its borders. What has happened in the Central Division of Bristol? I have figures which were sent to me by the Town Clerk the other day. We have 3,739 out-voters. That is a number in excess of the majority by which the late Member for the division was returned at two General Elections. It is fair to deduce from that that. the people who do not live in the division but simply carry on their business in the centre of the city and live elsewhere and vote there first, were able to over-ride and nullify the wishes of the people actually residing in the division.
That is an anomaly which this Clause, I rejoice to know, will remove completely.
The Clause will make it possible, for the first time in political history, for the will of the people living in my division, as declared at the polls, to be carried out faithfully. I never thought that I should listen to such a reactionary speech as that delivered by a right hon. Gentleman opposite. He seems to imagine that working people are valuable only in so far as they are able to produce wealth for others to enjoy, and he rather deprecated counting their noses at election times. I have never seen any dislike, on the part of the Tory party, of the counting of noses when those noses are on their side of the fence; then they are always pleased to welcome them. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very strong and courageous man who stands up to certain elements and institutions and individuals, and I was wondering whether he would be bold enough to go down and repeat that speech to a meeting of the working men in his own division and see what reception he has. I think his argument would be regarded, as we regard it, as entirely antiquated and out of date.
An argument advanced as justification for the plural vote is that business men have large financial interests at stake in their businesses. Large numbers of my constituents live in my Division but work daily at the docks at Avonmouth, three or four miles away, and in another Division. Hon. Members opposite do not suggest that because these working men carry on their daily occupation in another Division they should be given a second vote, or that their wives should have a second vote. If they did we might look forward to a change in the representation of Bristol West in the near future. The plural vote as given to business people is the last relic of the political privilege of the wealthy, and I sincerely trust that all of us who stand for political equality will be solid behind the Government in the attempt to remove this blot from the Statutes of the country.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I have listened with attention to the last speech. I think the maker of it was in some error as to what the Clause really does. There is no question left of the plural voter at all. The idea of the Clause preserving the City of London in a unique position
is not to give to any person who votes in the City of London two votes, namely, for his residence and for his office, but is to preserve what one would like to see continued—an expression of opinion at an election by the people who are known throughout the world as the City of London. That is the whole point.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to be guided on this matter by the Chairman. I understand that the Chairman has ruled that the whole question of plural voting is to be discussed on this Clause. If the position is as the right hon. Gentleman is interpreting it, it would seem that the procedure so far has been somewhat irregular.

The CHAIRMAN: The whole Clause is under discussion.

Sir R. HORNE: I am supporting the Government's Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is to be taken before the Clause, but we are discussing the Amendment and the Clause together.

Sir R. HORNE: I think that, even on the Ruling you have given, I am entitled to speak as I am doing. I am supporting the Clause. I wish to preserve the opportunity of the business men of the City of London to express their opinion. Let me say, at the outset, that there is no question of putting the citizens of the City of London in the privileged position of being allowed to give two votes. He can vote only once at an election—for his residence or for the City of London. The only thing that the Clause does is to preserve a constituency which has throughout the world a reputation that no other constituency in this country has. I say that with the deepest possible esteem and respect for the Central Division of Glasgow. There is no community in the Kingdom for which I have a higher regard, but the Central Division of Glasgow has no meaning throughout the world, as the City of London has.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Forgive me for interrupting, but that is a very serious slander on the City of Glasgow. When the right hon. Gentleman is given the Freedom of Glasgow I ask him to repeat that statement at the first opportunity to those who give it to him.

Sir HORNE: I shall be delighted to repeat it. I am certain that no sensible person in. Glasgow will take the slightest exception to what I am now saying. With great deference to my hon. Friend, the divisions of the City of Glasgow are not known throughout the world. Even the Gorbals Division is scarcely known outside the United Kingdom. St. George's, Westminster, may have a particular meaning for us at the present time, but there is no one in other parts of the world who cares at all what is happening there. When a speech is made by a representative of the City of London, either in this House or outside, it acquires a character throughout the world because of the international reputation which the City of London has. You cannot go to any part of the world without everyone that you meet knowing the particular characteristic of the City of London. What we are talking about I would like the Committee to consider in words more eloquent than mine:
Great new countries have been opened up, very largely through the action of just this one square mile which surrounds the Mansion House. Just this little spot has had more to do as an instrument in developing these great new countries than any other spot under the sun. More solid and substantial wealth throughout the world has been built up very largely by the action of this great City.
That is what we are talking about. The City has a unique character, which does not belong to any other town or community in this country or in any other part of the world. The words I have quoted are from a speech by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has taken very many opportunities in the past of pouring out encomiums on the City of London and the great work which it has performed. What is this City of London in the eyes of the people abroad? It is a community of hankers, of discount houses, of brokers and of merchants whose attitude upon business matters has a special value. When people abroad read that the Member for the City of London has said something, they do not regard it as the expression of opinion of one who has, been chosen by anybody other than the experts whom they know to reside in that community. Accordingly from that point of view, from the consideration of our power in the world it is of great advantage to preserve the situation as it exists to-day.
But I go further. I read yesterday or this morning that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs gave evidence before the Committee which is considering the practice and procedure of this House. One of the things that he commended was the setting up of some industrial organisation which could be available for consultation by the Government in all the great matters with which we are concerned in relation to our industries. In this particular branch of our activities, which is of vast importance to this country, you have already in existence a system by which at least you get some consultation with those who are carrying on the merchanting business of the world, because on all these matters you have in this House two Members who are the choice of those who conduct the business of the City of London. It is a matter of great moment that we should be able to have that advice in this House.
From the point of view of our welfare it would be worth while to preserve the unique connection between this House and the City. But there is much more than that to be said in favour of the unique position which the City occupies. I think I am not wrong in saying that at the present time approximately one-quarter of the Income Tax paid in this country is paid in the City of London, and that the rateable value of the City of London is approximately one-twenty-fifth of the whole rateable value of this country. Those two figures represent an influence and an importance worth consideration when we are dealing with the question of representation in this House. There is more than that. This would be the worst possible time for the House to indicate in any way to the world at large that the City of London is no longer to be regarded as having that importance in this House which it has possessed hitherto. This country profits more by the credit position which it holds in the world than by anything else.
Let me give an example. Those of the Committee who happen to have read the last report of the Board of Trade showing how the imports which we have bought have been paid for, will have seen among the items of our invisible exports a figure of I think £55,000,000, representing discounts and commissions earned in this country by those doing foreign
business, and performing services for people doing a foreign trade. That sum of £55,000,000, which was, I think, £68,000,000 last year And £65,000,000 the year before, is earned mainly in the City of London. Foreigners choose our money market here as being the best market in which they can make their payments owing to the credit which we enjoy, and once you do anything to diminish that powerful credit which we enjoy throughout the world, you are going to lose a very important and tangible business asset. It may be said that this is only high finance. I may be asked what is the benefit of it to the country?

Mr. MAXTON: Our question is not what the City of London has to do with high finance, but what high finance has to do with Parliamentary representation.

Sir R. HORNE: I thought I had indicated that, but I shall return to the point. As I say, this money is earned by reason of the credit which we enjoy throughout the world, and it performs an important function in paying a very large contribution to the Income Tax revenue of this country. It does more than that. It is very often thought that high finance has nothing to do with the industries of the country, but, in fact, it is one of the most material elements in our business, and when one reflects, the reasons for this are obvious. Foreign people keep large balances in the City of London.

The CHAIRMAN: I am rather in a difficulty here. I imagine that a certain amount of discussion on this question is allowable, but at the same time I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should keep a little more closely to the question before the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE: I think one or two sentences will be sufficient to indicate my point. If you do anything at the present time, especially after some recent. events to which I do not refer in detail, to show that the House of Commons is disregarding the important position of the City of London in this country, the effect will be to decrease a valuable business which not merely returns a large Income Tax revenue, but also yields great benefits in the form of orders for our industries. These balances which exist in the City of London are not lying idle. They are loaned out to all the other countries of
the world. We are drawing from those foreign balances a considerable revenue, and the loans which we give ultimately go out in the shape of goods which are ordered from our factories. The financial position which the City of London occupies in the world is one of the most important factors in relation to the competitive market, and if you interfere with it, you will suffer unemployment to an extent which will be startling. Accordingly I say that, of all times, this would be the worst time at which to reflect in any way on the position of the City of London in Parliament. Anything you do to show your confidence in the City, to show the importance of its Parliamentary representation, will ultimately benefit the industry of this country. I am certain that London deserves the unique position which it occupies and deserves to be continued in that position; and when it is not sought by the Government to give any advantage to the voter in the City of London, in respect of an extra vote which others do not enjoy, but only to give him the privilege of saying whether he shall vote for his residence or for his premises in the City of London, it seems such a small matter that the Committee might well acquiesce in the proposal of the Government.

Mr. KNIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has made a very interesting speech, but I do not think he has very much advanced the cause which he advocated. His observations were of the sort which will inspire other observations from hon. Members behind me, which will be equally irrelevant to the issue.

Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Member entitled to make a charge of that kind in reference to speeches which have not yet been deliverer?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member anticipates a speech which is likely to be in order I cannot prevent him doing so.

Mr. WISE: But is he entitled to misrepresent it before it is delivered?

Mr. KNIGHT: I happen to have been here most of the time, and to have heard certain observations from hon. Members behind me. I can understand the sore-
ness of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Wise) who is associated with certain rival financial interests, and I anticipate that if he has the opportunity, he will follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead on lines which, with great respect to both of them, are not relevant to the matter before the Committee. I speak on this matter with a certain amount of feeling myself because I happen to be one of those on these benches who have been admitted to the freedom of the City of London. I regard that honour with appreciation and I hope it may even yet fall to the lot of the hon. Member for Leicester. But we are not concerned here at all with the financial interests of the City of London. That is not the issue before us, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead is doing his cause a disservice by making a speech which will be construed outside as a defence of the financial interests of the City of London.
What we are concerned with here is whether or net the City of London should be placed in a special relationship to the legislation with which we are dealing and what is going to move many of my hon. Friends on this side is, I know, the feeling that there should not be such a discrimination in favour of the City of London. On that point they will perhaps allow me to make certain observations. The City of London has always stood in a very special relation to the House of Commons. The Mover of the Amendment, in a very interesting speech, gave some account of the representation of the City in Parliament in the past, and the Committee will remember that at various points there were no Members from the City of London in this House. Why was that? Because at various points in history, when the rights of the House of Commons and the citizens had to be stood up for against the reigning Sovereign, it was the City of London who carried on the fight.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Not this City of London.

Mr. KNIGHT: The constituency which we now know as the City of London is the descendant and representative of that great association of London citizens which carried out great fights for the liberties of the country in the past. For that reason the House of Commons has always regarded the City of London in
a special light. It is a sentimental reason. It is the sort of reason which moves a man to speak of the actions of his forebears. I would point to one incident connected with the relationship of the City of London to the House of Commons from which the political philosophy of my hon. Friends on this side has benefited more than any other philosophy in the world. I refer to the fight which resulted in the establishment of the right to record the Debates of the House of Commons. That was the result of a splendid stand by the City of London in protection of the printer who was actually arrested by the House of Commons. I suggest that the special reasons which have connected membership of the House of Commons with the City of London are reasons which should still weigh with hon. Members who are going to vote on this question.
I am not concerned with plural voting in any shape or form. I have fought against it as long as anybody on these benches—including the Treasury Bench—and my attitude towards it is that described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I am not concerned with it at all, but I am concerned with the simple question of whether we should continue this exception in favour of the City of London. I ask the Committee to continue that exception for the particular reason which I have just given, namely, that the City of London is in a special relation to the House of Commons; as a community which stood for the liberties of the House of Commons and the people when no other community in the land would do so. There is another reason. I am recalling historical facts which should be within the knowledge of every informed Member of the Committee when I say that there is a special reason why those who sit on these benches should have a special regard for the City of London. What was the beginning of organised labour in this land? One would suppose that it started from some conference at Bradford or in some office in Queen Victoria Street or Smith Square. Nothing of the kind. The organisation of labour in this land began in the City of London with the train bands.

Mr. EDE: No, but it was a Lord Mayor of London who killed Wat Tyler.

Mr. KNIGHT: If the hon. Member will go to the Library and check what I am saying he will find that it is true. Organised labour in this country began with the train bands of the city. It was the train bands of the city who stood for the rights of the citizens, when those rights were assailed by Sovereigns and other important personages in those days. I shall not detain the Committee by arguing on the point because every informed person here knows that what I say can be justified by reference to history. I merely suggest to hon. Members here with whom I am associated, that there are substantial reasons connected with the history of the country and of their own movement which should induce them to regard the City of London in a special light, not because it is a great financial centre, not because it has done things as a community with which some of us disagree, but because, in regard to the Franchise Acts, it has a relationship with this Assembly not enjoyed by any other corporation or any other area in the country. For that reason, which I frankly admit is a sentimental reason, I am going to support this Clause in its entirety.

8.0 p.m.

Colonel Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER: I think it is very gratifying—it certainly is to me—that we have had all sides of the Committee, including the Socialists and even the Liberals, supporting the City on this occasion, though there are a few of what is known as the left wing of the Treasury Bench who think otherwise, but, when it comes to the vote, I think they will find themselves very much in the cold, and that we shall be supported by the Government as a whole. The Home Secretary, in his speech, for which I am grateful, represented, I concluded, the Ministers in the Cabinet, and, if he did, why at the last moment should he turn away from his support and leave the question to the open vote of the Committee, as if he had not the courage of his own convictions? My hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) gave us a historical account of the City, and every Member who has spoken, even the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), has represented that the City of London is quite an exceptional City, both in our country
and in any other part of the world. There is no city to compare with the City of London. I believe that every Member of this House is proud of the City of London, and, if that is so, why is it that some of them want to make the City of London less than a small borough? If some of the Socialists opposite were to have their own way, the City of London would be wiped out, and it would be the very worst thing that could happen to this country.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. O. Baldwin), who moved the Amendment, was quite wrong. Someone said he was wrong in his facts, but he cannot be wrong in his facts, because if they are facts, they are facts. The first Member of Parliament of the City of London dates back to 1284, and the City has had Members practically ever since. It used to have more than two Members, but some previous Parliaments considered two were sufficient, and I consider that those two should still represent the City and that the City should not be divided. If you took away the Alternative Vote—it is only the Alternative Vote for which we are asking—the City would have practically no voters at all, and what does the City represent? The hon. Member for Dudley stated that we Members here represent the financiers of the City, but I should like to tell him, what he must know, that there are more great merchants in the City of London than possibly in any other city in this country, and we represent, not only the financiers, if hon. Members like to call them so, but the great merchants of the City.
I do not think the question needs elaborating. We have heard extremely good speeches, and I think that all those hon. Members who are opposed to the Clause, owing to some little quibble in their own minds, if they could only dispel that quibble would come round and support instead of opposing their own Front Bench. I conclude that the only reason the Home Secretary is putting this question to a free vote of the Committee is that he thought that if the Government put on their Whips there might be some other quibbles among his own party. I hope the Government will be sufficiently strong minded to go into the Lobby with us and see that we carry the Clause and reject the Amendment.

Mr. NAYLOR: I have spent the whole of my working days within the shadow of St. Paul s, though probably, in this connection, I should say the shadow of the Mansion House, and although I have not yet received the freedom of the City, nor do I expect it, nor do I wish for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I say that without any disrespect to the City—I am to-night opposing the Amendment and supporting the Clause as it stands, not for the reasons advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), nor for those given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). I do not think we need study the traditions of the City or consider its long history in this connection. It is not a question of whether the City shall have two representatives or one. If that were the question before us, I might be in favour of reducing the representation of the City from two to one, but all that is before us is the question whether the present system of electing two Parliamentary representatives for the one Division of the City should remain, or whether we should put the City to the trouble of dividing itself into two parts and compelling the City to send two representatives to represent two separate parts.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member evidently has not been here, or he would know that Clause 2 is disposed of and that we are now on Clause 3, which deals with the business qualification.

Mr. NAYLOR: I understood that the Amendment was before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment does not raise the question of breaking the City into two constituencies.

Mr. NAYLOR: In that case, I must bow to your Ruling and leave the discussion to other hon. Members.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I support the Clause as it stands, and I join with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and, with all deference to the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), I am rather surprised that, with his knowledge of the City of London, he was not to a large extent in accord with my right hon. and learned Friend. There are 44,000 electors, in round figures, in
the City of London, and a very large number of them who carry on business in the City are, owing to the position of the law, debarred from taking part in an election in support of either one or other of the candidates. A large number of the businesses in the City of London are conducted under what is known as the limited liability system, under which members of those firms have no voting power at all. The City of London has a unique position, and it is generally recognised by all parties, not only as the capital of the Empire to which we belong, but as the capital of the world.
At the present time those who are living in the City and those who are doing business there and are able to obtain a vote have the opportunity of recording their vote in the City of London just as they have of recording it elsewhere. I happen to be one of those who have worked in the City of London ever since the days when I left school, and anyone who has studied the history of the City of London knows that it goes back for hundreds of years and that they have established various guilds to enable people to learn their various businesses, under the apprenticeship system. They have done everything they could, particularly with regard to labour in the various industries, and I should have thought that if the question were looked at from a sympathetic point of view, and if one remembered the schools and other institutions that have been set up there, one would agree that they are entitled to some special consideration.
I was very glad when I saw in the Bill that the Government proposed that those who were resident or working in the City of London should have the opportunity of recording their second vote, but I was a little astounded when I found the Home Secretary, who must have been fully seized of the necessity of giving those resident or engaged in the City of London a second vote—

Mr. EDE: They do not get the second vote.

Sir F. HALL: I meant to say that I was surprised that he should have given them the opportunity of having their vote in the City of London and then more or less whittled it down. He seemed to
say, "Having made up my mind that that is advisable, nevertheless, instead of asking the support of the whole Committee I am going to leave it to a free vote because of an Amendment which has been put upon the Order Paper." The Government must have been fairly convinced in their own minds, after weighing the arguments for and against, that the vast interests in the City of London referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend, such as the banking interests, the great merchants, and the insurance interests—the City is the great home of insurance in this country—needed consideration, and they should have received consideration.
I hope the change that has come over the Home Secretary will not affect the general feeling of the Committee on this question. I hope hon. Members will remember the desire that has always been shown by those closely allied with the City of London, those freemen of the City of London, of which I am proud to be one—it is one of those privileges that I prize very much indeed, and I cannot help thinking that there are many hon. Members opposite who, if the freedom of the City were offered to them, would take it. I agree that they have ideas with regard to the City that are not the same as those of the hon. Member for South East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), but I believe they would not be like that hon. Member, but that they would value that freedom.

Mr. NAYLOR: The hon. Baronet represents me as having said that I did not value the freedom of the City. What I said was that I did not wish for the freedom of the City, which, I submit, is quite another matter.

Sir F. HALL: I accept the statement of the hon. Member in the fullest possible manner, and I am only too delighted to do so, for the sake of the many years during which I have known him, because it was surprising to me, from my personal knowledge of him, to understand what he said in the way in which I have indicated. I hope the time is not far distant when the hon. Member will be offered and will gladly accept the freedom of the City of London. This is not a party question at all, and there should not be any feeling in the matter, when
we look at the records of the City, of which we are all proud. The City of London is a spring which is the source of an enormous amount of labour—not the work that is actually done in the City, but the work that follows from the activities of the merchants, and of the great shipping, banking, and financial interests. They are all interwoven with the question of labour. I trust that, notwithstanding the Amendment on the Paper, the Government, having come to their decision, will take courage in their hands, and that the great majority of Members of all parties will follow the advice that was tendered in Clause 3 and will support the proposal as it was brought before the House.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON, Junr.: I support the Amendment on grounds different from those which have been advanced by those responsible for it. I make no apology for expressing my complete agreement with the enconiums that have been passed on the City of London. It is an undoubted fact that the prestige of the City is unrivalled throughout the civilised world, and in my fairly extensive travels in other countries I have found the greatest respect and trust in the solid financial foundations and the integrity of those who are responsible for carrying out the affairs of the City of London. I cannot see the connection between the great financial and economic position of the City and the change that would be embodied in the Bill if this Amendment were carried. There is no suggestion that the City of London should no longer have representatives in this House. The effect of the Amendment would merely be to change the basis of the electorate. No person would be entitled to vote unless he or she had the qualification which is contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1918, that is to say, a residential qualification. It would still be possible for the City of London to have representatives in this House.
I doubt whether it can really be maintained that there is anything very special in the fact that the City of London has two representatives in this House, and that the whole world waits with great interest and expectation the views that they express. I say it without offence, but the rare occasions on
which one of those hon. Members speaks, and the extremely rare occasions on which the other one speaks, make the value of that argument very small. To some of us it is a question of principle. We believe that there should be one man one vote, and one woman one vote, and that the qualification should be on a residential basis. We have had many experiences during the past hundred years of qualifications that have been otherwise than on a residential basis. We have rid ourselves of the rotten borough system; we have gradually destroyed or removed the property qualification, and we hope to move the last vestige which remains when this Bill becomes law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) made a passionate appeal on behalf of what he called sectional class representation. I would have been prepared to go a long way with him if he had developed his argument in favour of giving sectional representation to those who do not enjoy it now, but as he developed his argument it was perfectly clear that his main intention was to retain sectional representation on behalf of those who enjoy it at the present time.
I would like to remind the Committee of an illustration which I gave during the Second Reading Debate, because it is a clear example of the abuses which have crept into the present system. There are 500,000 business votes in the country at the moment. The qualification for a business vote is the occupation of premises for the purposes of the trade, business, or profession of the person seeking to be registered. In the ordinary case no objection could be taken to that, apart from the principle involved, but take the case of limited liability companies, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) referred. He said that in the City there were many limited liability companies, and that under the law they had no right to vote. That is true, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have pointed out that the directors of those companies have the right to vote, provided they occupy premises for the purpose of their business. On Second Reading, I cited a case which caused great interest two or three days ago. In the City of London there was a firm which carried on a printing business; it was a very small busi-
ness employing 20 or 30 workpeople, and was carried on in one large warehouse. At one end of the warehouse a number of cubicles had been erected, in each of which certain office furniture had been placed. Each cubicle was at the disposal of one of the directors, of whom there were four. Each director signed what purported to be a temporary agreement, in which he agreed to pay his own company £20 a year by way of rent. The case was eventually taken to the Court of Appeal. One of the parties argued that the directors occupied their rooms for the purposes of the business of the company. The other side argued that each director occupied his room for the purpose of his own business as a director. To ordinary people that would seem to be a distinction without a difference. But the Court of Appeal by a majority of two decided that each of those directors occupied his room for the purposes of his business as a director, and not for the purpose of the company's business. The votes were upheld, but it did not stop there, because three of the directors were married, so that in addition to the four directors being placed upon the register, three wives were placed upon the register. There were therefore seven votes in respect of one business premises.

Captain WATERHOUSE: They could not vote.

Mr. HENDERSON: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not believe that to be the case. There is nothing to prevent a woman over 21, who has the necessary qualifications, from voting.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Not twice in one election.

Mr. HENDERSON: It is quite permissible, so long as it is not in the same constituency. I am sure that these directors were not resident in the City of London, and would have residential qualifications in some more salubrious spot. The point I am making is that seven voters were registered in respect of one warehouse. No doubt four of them spent their daily lives in that particular locality, but I doubt very much whether the three wives spent very much of their time in the City of London. The staff of that firm comprised 20 or 30 workpeople, but not a single one of them was entitled to a vote in respect of those
premises. That is a situation we are seeking to remedy by this Bill, and I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will cast their votes in favour of the abolition of the business vote.
I happen to represent the business centre of Cardiff, and in my own constituency there are 600 business voters on the register. It is calculated that 60 or 70 per cent. of them reside outside the constituency, living in other parts of Cardiff, and we have the strange position that these business men and their wives are able to give two votes whenever there is an election in all three divisions of the city. So far as the City of London is concerned, I hope it will not be suggested that because some of us feel that we must support this Amendment we have not a proper regard for the prestige of the City of London.

Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS: I intend to vote against the Amendment. I am absolutely at one with my party in thinking that it would be a disaster to this country if the City of London qua the City of London were disfranchised. While I think her interests are quite safe, however, I feel rather more concerned about my own constituency. I happen to be one of those who will feel a very bad draught if this Bill becomes law, as my constituency, the Exchange division of Liverpool, is in part a business constituency and in part a residential constituency, and the loss of the business vote will probably see the end of my Parliamentary existence. That is in itself a very minor matter, but I feel that to take away from business communities their right to have a direct voice in this House is a bad and a retrograde thing. Business communities stand for an enormous interest in this country, and their representation here should be welcomed. Apart from that, I feel very strongly against this Clause, because this deal—as it obviously is—between the two parties sets up a dangerous precedent.
It is a bad thing that parties should proceed to rearrange the electoral system in order that they may have a better chance of securing an increased majority. It is an act which will bring about great retaliation in the future; it will not rest here. I have looked
through the list of Conservative business men who represent business constituencies. There are 24 seats which may probably be lost. On the basis of the Alternative Vote, the parties opposite expect to gain so many seats, I do not know how many, but one might suggest 30, and by the elimination of the university vote 11 Members go. Therefore, it is quite probable that between 50 and 100 seats may be gained by the Socialist and Liberal parties through this alteration in the electoral system. The incentive for this Bill is perfectly clear, therefore, and I regret it very much. Changes of this kind ought to be undertaken by an impartial tribunal, with the Speaker of the House of Commons in the chair, and all classes of the community represented.
A further objection which I have to this Bill leads me to use almost the same phrase as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I feel that democracy has gone a great deal too far when it carries us to "One man, one vote." That is not a business slogan for this country. I would prefer another maxim: "The man who pays the piper calls the tune." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite may say "Hear, hear," but what is in my mind is that most of the business men whose representation in this House is likely to be ended are partners with the Government in their business. They pay a very large portion of their income in Income Tax, and a great deal of their capital is taken from them for the benefit of the State when they die. It has come about that out of 29,000,000 electors fewer than 2,000,000 are direct taxpayers. I consider that those direct taxpayers who are finding one-half of the whole income of the State are entitled to some protection, and should at least be given a business vote, because I take it that most of their income is derived from their business. I look upon this proposal as only one more step to eventual economic disaster in this country, and it is with those feelings that I protest against it.

Mr. WISE: We have listened to speeches some of which have been full of badinage and some full of bad economics, and some a combination of
both. It would be quite easy to make the same case for a dozen historic cities in England as has been made for the City of London. If I had the time I could deliver a most learned historical lecture on the claims of the city of Leicester or of my native town of Bury St. Edmunds, both of which have sheltered refugees from Parliament in their time, to special representation in this House. To attempt in these days to settle issues by sentiment and rather doubtful historical associations seems to be ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous, if I may say so with respect, for the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to attempt to scare us with terrible stories of what will happen to the business prestige of the City of London if this special representation is withdrawn, and if two strangers to the Treasury Bench cease to sit upon it, upon special occasions, wearing top hats. He entirely and most disgracefully misrepresents the basis of the credit and the prestige of the City of London. If they really rest upon that basis the City of London must be in a very poor way.
I suggest that the Lord Mayor's coachman is much better known throughout the civilised world, and much more attention would be attracted to the fact that, in deference to the campaign for economy, he is going to be pensioned off than to the transfer of the two hon. Members who sit for the City of London from a seat on the Treasury Bench to somewhere else. It is not as if the Tory party had not got pocket boroughs waiting for them. At the present moment they cannot find a candidate for St. George's. Here is an admirable opportunity of finding employment for one of those very distinguished Members. We should like to retain them in the House. It is a good thing, sometimes, for hon. Members who speak with such knowledge of the banking interest to show how unwilling they are to tell us in this House what is really going on. One of our main difficulties is to discover whom to hold responsible for various misfortunes which a right hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite ascribed recently to the mistakes of the City of London. It seems to me to be absolutely impossible to defend the perpetuation of this relic of mediaevalism of the separate representation of the City of London. When it
is said that the representatives of the City of London represent business interests of the train bands, may I point out that the population of the City of London has completely changed since that period. In the days when the City of London did perform those ancient duties it was not the kind of place that it is now, and the train bands were not composed of stockbrokers and bullion merchants. At that time the City was the centre of industry not only of merchants but of the workers and craftsmen in industry and trade. If we were to analyse the opinions of the members of those bands at that time, I should think we should find that they represented the beginnings of the Labour party.
Everybody knows that the business centre of London is rapidly moving over a wider area, and to pretend that the City of London at the present time represents any really substantial part of the business interests of the country is simply an abuse of words. The only justification for the continued representation of the City is that it is associated with certain festive occasions, and I do not think a question of this kind ought to be determined upon such reasons as that. I am not able to understand by what logic or reason the Government propose to withdraw university representation and refuse to continue the representation of learning and yet give special representation to the City of London. I have not been impressed by the difficulties and intricacies of drafting to which the Home Secretary drew attention. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) it would be easy by consequential Amendments to straighten things out and put the City of London in the same position as any other city. If it is still the case that the City of London with one Member has more than its share of representation, we can decide without any undue damage to the Constitution or the prestige of this country whether the City of London should be attached to White-chapel or Piccadilly.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Not under this Bill.

Mr. WISE: I do not wish to underestimate the merits or the standing of the distinguished bankers who now represent the City of London, but I hope that the House will straighten out this anomaly,
and put the City of London in a position neither more nor less favourable than any other city in the Kingdom.

Mr. SMITHERS: We have just listened to a speech remarkable for its sarcasm, and ridiculing one of the greatest cities in the world. I maintain that the City of London does a great service to the country, and the only argument which the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) can use in regard to those services is one of ridicule and sarcasm. I claim to know something about the inner working of the City of London. The position of that city is unique in the whole world. I ask hon. Members to recollect that, although some manufacturers and industrial concerns have their premises away from the centre of the City, most of those businesses are conducted and initiated in the City of London. It is a common thing in this House to hear finance decried and ridiculed. I would like to give as an illustration the case of the Avonmouth Docks at Bristol. When Bristol desired to develop those docks, where did they go to get the money? They went to the City of London, and they could not have got the money anywhere else. It is because of the financial credit and the organisation of business in the City of London that it is the only place where undertakings of the kind I have mentioned can get the money to carry out their schemes.

Mr. WISE: Does the hon. Member mean that if the City of London had not its present representation in this House Bristol would not have been able to get the money it required?

Mr. SMITHERS: I was pointing out that for the reasons I have given it is ridiculous to say that the Members for the City of London should not be elected by the people who are carrying out great enterprises of national importance. I would remind the Committee of the fact that the whole Empire has been developed by money raised through the organisation of the City of London, and of the kind of fundamental business that is carried on in the City. This Clause, if carried, while it will not do away altogether with the power of the electors in the City who represent these great businesses to vote for the Members for the City, will at any rate diminish that representation. I think that few people
realise what an enormous amount of business is concentrated in that small area. There is, of course, in the first place, the great partner of the Government itself, the Bank of England—the adviser to the Government on all its financial operations, and the banker to the Government. Then there are Lloyd's, the Stock Exchange, Mincing Lane, the Baltic, and all the big commercial houses which manage the merchandise of the Empire, and, indeed, of the world, and through which all the finance and bills of exchange pass.
Last year, the recently published accounts for the country's imports and exports showed a difference of 360,000,000 between our imports and our exports. I would go a step further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who referred to the £55,000,000 of those invisible exports which was supplied by bills of exchange, and I would say that the earning of the great proportion of that £360,000,000 of exports is initiated either through or by the City of London. I can understand that some of our extreme Friends opposite are very glad to have a cut at the City of London, because they think it is a capitalist institution, but I would point out to them that any harm done to the City of London is harm done to their best friend. That £360,000,000 was earned for the country, and enabled a Socialist Government to spend what they did last year on social services, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and so on. [Interruption.] The City of London is indeed unique, not only in England but throughout the world, and I want to support the claim that the electors of the City of London should have the power to vote for representatives of the City of London as well as in their own constituencies.
Several speakers opposite, and especially the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), have decried sentiment and tradition. In this country—and I speak with knowledge—the business of the City depends to a much larger extent than many people suppose upon sentiment and tradition. A great deal of the business that comes to the City of London comes there because of the character of the people who do the business there, and because of the old and honoured names of those who are still conducting its business. Whatever the
hon. Member for East Leicester may say, it is a sentimental asset when you have an institution in the City where even Princes and Ambassadors are proud to be guests, and where, every year, the Lord Mayor's banquet is made the occasion for a statement by the Prime Minister of the day. For all these reasons, I claim that the City of London is in a unique position, and should have proper and full representation, not only of the caretakers and shopkeepers, but of the men who conduct the business of the City.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Only two points of any substance have been raised in connection with the City of London and the retention in the Bill of the provision with regard to it. One was that the City of London is a very important centre, well known throughout the entire world, and that to abolish its representation would weaken the financial edifice of this country. The second argument was that mentioned by the Home Secretary, though, to be fair to him, he did not attempt to use that line of argument, and I am perfectly certain that even the present Labour Government would not attempt to defend this Clause on that ground. The sort of argument that appeals to us is not that which has been addressed to us by the Conservatives. That argument can only appeal to the Conservative-minded; it cannot make any appeal to what I may call Liberal-minded persons, or to Labour people or Socialists. The argument that the City of London should be retained because it has finance, because it has wealth, because it has the power that wealth can give, cannot make any appeal either to Socialists or to Liberals on a ground that is fundamental both to Socialism and to Liberalism, namely, the right to a free vote.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was cynical in his support of the retention of the City of London. He said that it is more important than the City of Glasgow, but it all depends upon what is meant by the City of London. His argument is unanswerable if it means the docks. Whitechapel, Battersea—the East, the West and the centre. That is the City of London. But, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the City of London, he only means a few
select rich people in the centre. I say that the City of London is important if you consider it from its poorest part right throughout its length and breadth, but that the City of London as a centre of rich people makes no appeal to the great mass of the population either in this or in any other country.
I disagree partly with the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). To the great masses of the people, the City of London represents wealth and power, but, far from its representing progressive, liberating ideas, to them it represents oppression in its worst and most cruel form. It is argued in favour of the City of London that it has been a liberating force, and that in future it would stand for those liberating forces. That argument was used by the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. E, C. Grenfell), and I think I am entitled to controvert that idea. What are the facts to-day? What are we faced with in Britain? The great battleground in this House of Commons, so far as the rich and the poor are concerned, is the battleground of money, of finance. The poor people are poor because they have no income; the rich people are rich because they have an income and the only way to make poor people rich is by giving them an income. The battleground for the Labour movement is a battleground of finance. What keeps the poor poor? It is typified by its two representatives, who, in every Parliament in which they can, stand for the most remorseless, brutal treatment of the poor people of this community.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If we travel along those lines, we shall get away altogether from the subject before the Committee, which is the nature of the qualification to apply in the City of London. We cannot have a discussion on the respective merits of Capitalism or Socialism by one side or the other on this occasion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think you will agree, Sir, that it has been the unwritten custom, when once an argument has been allowed, that, without undue Debate, it can be replied to, and that is all that I am seeking to do. The argument was used that it was a liberating force and would be used again. I sought, with the same terseness of argument but perhaps
not with the same ability as the right hon. Gentleman, to reply to it. I pass from it, but I wish to emphasise that, as as a liberating force now, it is from the point of view of the large masses the extreme opposite.
The other argument is that, if the vote were abolished, it would create an anomaly. I hope the Home Secretary will not think that I am personal, but the case he put was that for the City of London to return two Members with 5,000 votes in each case would be an anomaly, and it could not be put right in the Bill, and, because it was an anomaly, it must continue for all time. I do not deny that it is an anomaly now, but this is the only opportunity we shall have to alter the law for many years. If you had a Redistribution Bill, you could not go into the merits of the question then, because it would be decided by this Bill. Great new cities are springing up, and there must be a Redistribution Bill in the next few years, and what appears to be an anomaly is no anomaly at all. The mere fact that redistribution is absolutely and vitally necessary destroys the only argument against this Amendment.
9.0 p.m.
I make no complaint against those who have accepted honours from the City of London, and I give them credit for whatever honesty they have in accepting them, but they must give us the same credit for honesty that they wish conceded to themselves. It is no question of sour grapes. I appeal to Liberal Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) only said, "With some misgivings I will support it." The only thing is its past tradition, What is its tradition? Is it greater to Liberals than Manchester, with its connection with Chartism? Why should not Manchester have the vote far more than the City of London? What is there in this Clause to appeal to Liberal ideas, particularly in view of the fact that their leader only a few weeks ago ridiculed it? It has no claim to any treatment of this kind. It is hanging on to its privileges and fighting to retain them. It means two seats for reaction, two seats in order to suppress the poor. I hope every lover of the common people will range himself on
their side and take this meagre step for their liberation.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I feel called upon to speak on this topic because, if this iniquitous Bill passes, many of my own constituents are going to be in exactly the same position as the citizens of the City of London. That is to say that quantities of them will be obliged to vote in the country districts Where they happen to sleep and not in the districts where they do their work, where they have their being and where they are occupied from morn till eve. I do not grudge the citizens of London in the least their double vote. I cannot see in the slightest why it should be taken from them. The point I would like to make is that we are to be sacrificed like the citizens of the City of London to a slogan. The slogan is "One man one vote." I have no doubt that it is a very good slogan. It sounds extremely well. One man one boot would sound particularly well also. But when considered, "One man one vote" is an absurdity. It is based on the theory that all men are equal, and it is obvious that no two men are equal. In what sense is the Leader of the Opposition equal to the Prime Minister. In what sense is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) equal to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones)? No two men are equal. Therefore, a view resting on the claim that all men are equal must obviously be absurd.
The point I would make is as follows. I happen to be acquainted with three people, all of whom have a single vote at present. Perhaps two of them are going to be deprived of their votes if this Bill passes. One has governed 15,000,000 people successfully for many years and has been honoured with every honour short of a peerage that the Crown can confer. The second is intermittently in a lunatic asylum, and the third is a skilled artisan who chooses to lose every position which is offered to him through an unfortunate addiction to betting. These three men have the same amount of voting value. It is absurd that the lunatic, and the wastrel living on the dole should have a power of voting equal to the man [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members accuse me of being out of order.
I am merely trying to demonstrate that no two voters are of exactly equal value. That voters in the City of London should have two votes does not pain me in the least.
The simple fact is that the ideal of democracy is not "one man one vote," not that the semi-idiot and the genius should have the same amount of vote power. It is clear that the vote of the person who has administered with success 15,000,000 souls is of enormously more value than that of the gentleman in the lunatic asylum. I do not wish to protect the City of London because money is there, but I wish to protect the double vote wherever it is left—in the City of London and the Universities—because I adhere to the notion of value in votes. No two men are equal, and it is clear that a good citizen should have more power to advise the nation and more power to settle the governance of the realm than the poorest brain which just keeps its owner out of a lunatic asylum. We must give everybody a vote, but why should not some people have more than one vote? I would not base it on the value of money in the slightest. A genius, a good citizen, one of the greatest assets to the realm, might be a very poor man indeed, and I would put vote-power upon deserts and upon value. I cannot see why the last attempt to keep any extra vote-power for brains and good citizenship should be ended. Of course, I am more interested in the university vote than in the City of London, but I look upon the City of London vote—

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I put it to you, Mr. Dunnico, that the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) is abusing the rights of the Committee in order to make a speech on university franchise when dealing with the City of London.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member is merely giving an illustration from one of the universities in support of the position of the City of London.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was strictly in Order in debating whether it was right and proper that one man should have only one vote. It is true that he made a slight passing reference to the university vote. Had he developed that argument, I should certainly have pulled him up, but he did not do so.
I think that hon. Members may trust me to deal with these matters. I am following the Debate.

Sir C. OMAN: I was only saying that I wish to protect the City of London in every way possible, because of a fellow feeling, as the representative of a constituency, which, like the City of London, is threatened by what I regard as a most unwise and iniquitous Bill. And therewith I conclude what, after my wont, is, I think, a very short trespass on the time of the House.

Mr. EDE: The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) said that he was in favour of giving the best citizens the most votes. I have no doubt that that is a point of view which most of us would take up, because I find that on polling day we are apt to think that the best citizens are going to vote for us. I would like to see a schedule to an Act of Parliament which decided the number and the variety of votes the different citizens were to have. Let us be clear upon this matter. There is no proposal in front of the Committee in regard to this Clause which affects anything except giving more than one vote to the representatives of wealth. If there were something in the Clause to say that the highly-skilled artisan might have as many votes as a highly-skilled company promoter, there would be some justification for it. I cannot imagine why, after we were appealed to yesterday to preserve the simple franchise because it would be so difficult for people to give an alternative vote, we should be asked to-day to give a very complicated franchise in which people receive definite numbers of votes upon satisfying some person or other of their definite value as citizens.
We have been asked by certain hon. Members opposite to believe that this discussion and its result are being awaited with terror by people abroad who have foreign investments in the City of London, and that if to-night this Committee decide that the electoral roll of the City of London is to be placed upon a basis different from the present basis, they will immediately wire for all their money to be transferred back to them, because it will not be safe, owing to the fact that some slight may have been caused to the City of London. After all, the business franchise does not merely enfran-
chise the bankers and the financiers, but it enfranchises my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) and other people who have chambers in the Temple and elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have no doubt that it is thought to be a good thing on the opposite side of the Committee, because few lawyers find the straight and narrow path to the Labour party. I cannot help thinking that if the votes of lawyers were cast as a rule for this party rather than for one or other of the parties opposite, it might be felt that their votes were not quite as good as they are regarded at the moment.
My hon. Friend below me used an extraordinary argument. He thinks that somewhere in the remote times of antiquity the Labour party had its origin in the City of London. Therefore, inasmuch as it is our cradle, and I suppose that Gog and Magog rocked the cradle, we ought to retain the double representation of the City. So far as I know, the thing of which the City is proudest is the representation of the dagger on its coat of arms with which Walworth stabbed Wat Tyler. I should have liked to hear the hon. Member develop his argument a little further, so that he might have told us at what point of time and under what circumstances the Labour party had its origin in the City of London. We have had various appeals to support the City of London becuase of the famous afternoon when King Charles I entered the House, which was then St. Stephen's Hall, and the City of London received the five Members to its bosom. That is a long time ago. I doubt if there was an attempt made to arrest five Members of the Liberal party at the present time—

Major DAVIES: You could not find them.

Mr. EDE: There are five Members of the Liberal party here now. I doubt if they would receive the same hospitality in the City of London that John Hampden and his colleagues received. Are we to give Middlesex special representation because it returned John Wilkes on several occasions? Are we to preserve Wendover because it returned John Hampden?

Mr. FOOT: John Hampden was first returned for a Cornish constituency.

Mr. EDE: I was coming to Cornwall. Are we to give Tregoney two Members because—

Mr. FOOT: It is pronounced Tregoney in our part.

Mr. EDE: I am glad that I have got sufficiently near to the pronunciation for the hon. Member to recognise the place to which I was referring. Are we to continue two Members for that borough, the name of which the hon. Member can pronounce, because it returned Peter Wentworth? We have to deal with the facts of to-day and we have to make an electoral system which is based on the facts of to-day. The main reason why the City welcomed the five Members was because they were fighting a King that was attempting to tax the City rather more heavily than they thought they ought to be taxed. That is why, perhaps, the City might be prepared more readily to welcome five Members from the bench above the Gangway than they would be to welcome five Members from below the Gangway opposite, if it came to a case of saving people from arrest to-day.
We all agree that in the fight for political liberty in this country the City of London played a great and distinguished part, and all honour to them, but that is no reason why under the altered conditions, when the merchants of London no longer live over their shop premises, when their apprentices no longer live with them, that we should continue the double representation of the City. When one thinks of the way in which that high tradition has been departed from in recent years, we are entitled to say: "A mountain stream that ends in mud, methinks is melancholy."

Sir HILTON YOUNG: The hon. Member who has just spoken should not attempt to confuse the Committee. Yesterday we were contending for a simple system of electing and representatives and to-day we are pleading for variety in the interests to be represented. There is all the difference in the world between the two things. As regards the method by which we meet Members of Parliament there cannot be too much simplicity, but as regards the interests which those Members represent
there cannot be too great a variety. It is difficult in the speeches of hon. Members opposite to find anything except a positive rage for destruction. It is as if those hon. Members who have sat here for two years without effect are now saying to themselves: "We cannot construct anything but, at any rate, we can pull something down." It is always very much easier to pull down than to construct. It would be possible to attach some reason to the arguments that me have heard from the other side if in the country at the present time we had a system of absolute equality of representation, one man one vote in complete equivalence all over the country; but it is not so. That never has been the accepted system of the country and it is not so to-day.
Our existing system of representation is based upon representation of the locality; the representation of special interests in the separate localities. There is very great difference in the equivalence of votes in the various localities. Again, our system of representation is based upon the representation of special interests. It is so in the fact of representation of rural parts on the, one hand and the towns upon the other. No attempt has ever been made in our law to draw an absolute equivalent between the two, because it is recognised that if you are to get a healthy constitution in Parliament you must have these distinct parts of the country separately represented. If we were proceeding upon the basis of the strict equivalence of votes which hon. Members opposite are assuming, there would be something in their arguments, but there is nothing in their arguments under the present conditions.
Under the present conditions it is absolutely logical and in accordance with our existing system of representation that there should be a continuance of the representation by special means, very moderate means, of the business interests. If we had a Socialist system, if there was no capital in private hands, it would be reasonable to adopt the Resolution which is to be put to the House, but it is not so; we are still living, much to the regret of hon. Members opposite, under an individualist and capitalist system.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have had to rule one hon. Member out of order, for dealing with the respective merits of the financial system, and I am afraid that I cannot permit the hon. Member to discuss the capitalist system as opposed to the Socialist.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will content myself with observing that so long as there is capitalism in the country there should be some special weight given to the factor of business in the economic equation. Is it not a fact that at the present time doubts are arising in the minds of people not only in this country but all over the world as to whether equalitarian democracy is the best way of governing a country? Equalitarian democracy governs by the simple counting of heads. I cannot argue so wide a question tonight, but since it is possible that in the near future in order to get more effective government we should be looking forward to some means of getting a more reasonable basis for democracy than the mere counting as equal of heads which providence did not make equal, is it wise at the present time to root out of our existing system of representation every seed of variety for the future? The present seeds of variety are very few. There is university representation. Another most important seed of possible future variety is in the special representation of business interests. When we are still in so much doubt as to what the future evolution of democracy may be, it is wise to keep those possibilities of variation, and not to eliminate them. If we do, we are going to make healthy evolution harder for the future.
A word about the City of London. It would be a most extraordinary thing, it would be showing a strange blindness to the history of this House, if such a Motion as we are shortly to vote upon were to be passed, and this House were practically to doom to extinction—because it is nothing less than that—the special weight of the City of London in our councils, without words being said to signify the grave sense of the extraordinary departure from all the traditions and historical memories most cherished by this House involved in such a course. The hon. Member who has just spoken challenged us to show how the Labour party had sprung from the support of the City.

Mr. EDE: I did not challenge you, but an hon. Friend on this side.

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will accept me as a temporary substitute, let me attempt to address myself to the very interesting question which he has raised. It does astonish me that hon. Members opposite, cherishing, as I suppose they do, the people's cause, should show so little regard for the association of the City of London with that cause. On three separate occasions in our history has the cause of the people depended for its existence on the influence in our councils of the City of London. The first was at the time of the great rebellion when the cause of Parliament in its first struggle with the Executive was cherished and maintained in existence by the support given to it by the City of London. The second occasion was when that all-too-adventurous pilot, the first Lord Shaftesbury, was organising the Green Ribbon Clubs, and introducing for the first time in our history the organisation of popular party government. He was then dependent for the very existence of that epoch-making development of the democratic cause on the City of London. The third occasion was that alluded to by the hon. Member himself in his reference to John Wilkes. John Wilkes did not depend for his influence on the county of Middlesex which returned him. He was supported and maintained in the struggle by the City of London. That was the last great struggle which occurred in this House between the cause of the people and the forces seeking to reestablish personal monarchical government.
One need not hesitate to refer to tradition. Tradition is not simply a barren memory. It is something from which we may learn important lessons as to what is wholesome for our nation's future. I am astonished that hon. Members opposite should be so indifferent to all the lessons which may be learned from the past as to the forces in our councils which fight for the people. Those forces are still alive. It is important to retain in our councils this great independent force of the City, so strong that it need consider neither Government nor any other overmastering power—no overmastering power whether of the wage-earners, the executive or any other power
at all. The power of the City of London will always stand as an independent force.
I do not fear to refer to the power of finance. It is important to consider it in our councils, so long as we have an individualist and capitalist system, as we still have. Adequate weight should be given to the various economic factors that make up that system. The City of London stands for that strong factor which is not otherwise represented here. At the risk of raising a derisive cheer I do not hesitate to say that the factor of finance deserves special weight in representation. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is not true. It was that stress is laid by us upon the City as the representative of wealth and power. That is not so. We support its representation because it performs high services to the community, that are not performed anywhere else, neither here nor indeed in any other country in the world. We owe much of our wealth and influence as a nation to the structure of international banking, trade and finance, which is maintained in the City of London. It is the world's centre of banking, shipping, and the source of our re-export industries. Believe me, if by this rage for destruction, this desire for dead uniformity, you succeed in injuring these great fruitful forces which work in the City of London, you will gravely impoverish this country. You will make unemployment go up even faster than it is.

Mr. MAXTON: I believe that I am one of the few Members of this House who have sat through the whole course of the Debate, only missing one speech. The thing which has interested me in the course of the discussion has been that though speaker after speaker has spoken in support of the maintenance of special interest representation in this House, each one has shown a difference in his special interest. It has been entirely different from the constituencies they happen to represent. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) gave a very delightful historical and antiquarian speech which might have come quite fitly from hon. Members for the Universities. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) made a speech which, I think, might fitly have come from the gutter. The financial speeches were made
by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) who sits for a delightful rural area, and by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who sits for a fashionable West End residential quarter of the City of Glasgow. All that seems to me to support the view that a plain democratic system of elections on a geographical basis secures that in this House there shall be an adequate representation of all the various interests who claim to be represented.
I am not interested seriously in the arguments of hon. Members opposite. They are, to use a current slang expression, "doing their stuff" in the appropriate style. They are endeavouring to maintain the special political powers and influence they have always had in the political affairs of this country. They are not content with having a special Chamber of their own at the other end, but most of them have special representation kept for them in this House. I am not concerned about that. It is their business to do it, and it is quite according to the necessities of the political struggle. I walked with hon. Gentlemen opposite into that Lobby last night because I recognised that the struggle that they are putting up to-day is a plain struggle, and, in my view, it will be a struggle a l'outrance, or to the bitter end. Therefore, I want a voting system that is plain and direct. I do not want a voting system that clouds the issues. To me, the reason why this country is hesitant about going forward with development, and has failed to solve the problems, is simply because we are evading the class issue. We are dodging the necessity for a fight between the rising working-classes and vested interests.
I would be foolish if, having the opportunity to cast my vote, I refrained from casting it against any attempt to continue the prestige of the City of London, to continue its political influence, because to me its influence—and I make all the necessary apologies to the hon. Gentlemen who represent it here—is definitely against the interests of the large mass of the community. It has been a vicious influence in the whole life of the present Government. It laid down its terms and conditions at the beginning of the Labour Government as has been done in every other country in the world
where Labour began seeing itself getting power. In Norway, the bankers threw out the Government after 10 days, because it declared itself Socialist. The bankers are trying to dictate to the Labour Government in Australia, and I asked here by the Labour Government to give special representation to that vicious financial interest.
I am interested in history in an academic way, and I hope I am sufficiently interested to draw lessons from the past. I know that the parallels used to-day to justify the historical exploits on the part of the City of London for political freedom were in regard to incidents drawn from the period when the commercial and financial forces were fighting a despotic monarchy and feudalism. The fight is not now between financial interests and feudalism, but between the working-classes and capitalism, and in the conditions of capitalism in which we are in to-day—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot permit a discussion of the respective financial systems, or a Debate might develop as between Socialism and Capitalism. I cannot allow that to take place on this Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: As has been said by speaker after speaker in the course of this Debate, the City of London is the key centre of finance and capitalism, not merely here, but throughout the world. The Labour Government, through the Home Secretary, asks me to cast my vote against the Amendment, because if we do not put in this Clause it will leave an anomalous position, an anomalous position in which the City of London may send two Members to this House with something like 5,000 votes only behind them. But the Clause, as drafted, does that; it creates that anomaly. If all the persons who work in the City of London through the day decide to cast their votes in the place where they live, the City of London will have 5,000 people represented by two Members in this House. That anomaly is there now, and that anomaly will remain.
There are a dozen ways in which it can be partly rectified by consequential Amendments in this Bill, and can be fully rectified in the subsequent redistribution legislation that must be
introduced before very long. I hope that every Labour Member in this House will realise the energy with which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have defended the position as against the interests of their own constituencies, as against the rights of their own constituencies. They are not talking about special representation for Huntingdon, which, as a constituency, has great historical associations for this House; they are not talking in terms of Oliver Cromwell's past history receiving special representation; they are not talking in terms of special recognition of Simon de Montfort. I say that if the City of London is to have two Members, then Huntingdon ought to have 10, and Leicester ought to have 20.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may use the past to back up their argument, but they want the special representation of the City of London, because it is the key centre of world finance and capitalism. Therefore, I propose to cast my vote to take away what special power they have got politically in this House, knowing that their power outside at this juncture is absolutely unlimited. I say, further, to those who are asking for special votes because they have got money—that argument has been used right throughout the Debate; Members on the Front Bench have said we must not have democracy merely by counting noses. We of the Labour movement are not counting noses but brains behind the noses, and we are prepared to carry on a fair, straight fight with others on the basis of brains, on the basis of intelligence, on the basis of political equality. But the representatives of the classes opposite are not prepared to meet us on that ground. They say, "You must give special weight to our political influence because we have got money"—not brains, but money—"because we have got property, because we have got position, because we have got university distinctions you have to give us special political power." I say they are frightened to face the working classes man to man on equal political ground. We are going to vote for this Amendment. Not even in the City of London are there to be special privileges to the wealthy classes of this country if our votes are able to prevent them.

Lord E. PERCY: We have just heard from the hon. Member a characteristic speech to which I may return later. At this moment, I would only say that we are discussing a new situation for this country, and not the hon. Member's pet game of class war. We have to approach this Amendment from the point of view of the constitution under which it is best for this country to be governed at the present moment. We have heard a great deal, especially from the back benches opposite, about making the House of Commons a more businesslike assembly, and this Debate is an example of the fact that the House of Commons, however much it restricts its debating powers, however much it restricts the time which it spends on debate, can never be businesslike as long as it is led by a Government which refuse to be businesslike. I have great sympathy with hon. Members opposite in the difficulty in which they have been placed when I look at the choice put before the Committee to-night. The Government have begun by introducing a Bill very narrowly drawn.
That was clever. Having drawn their Bill so narrow, they have made it impossible for hon. Members who have moved this Amendment to do what they want to do. They wish to abolish the representation of the City of London. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. O. Baldwin) says that they do not. Then we understand that they wish to leave one Member for the City of London representing a population variously estimated at from 5,000 to 10,000. That is the position of the House—that nothing that they can do with this Bill will produce from their point of view a decent or tolerable solution of the problem of the City of London. Into that position the Government have led us. Having led us into that position, where the only choice before us is to accept what they ask us to accept or to make nonsense of this Bill—to act like a lot of naughty little boys breaking the windows of a schoolmaster whom they do not like—having reduced us to that position, the Government run away and allow a free vote. The Government refuse even to prevent the House making a fool of itself. They have prevented this House doing a business job; they have prevented this House dealing with the question of the representation of the people in a way
worthy of the dignity of the House. It has prevented the House doing that, and then it turns round to ask—

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. What relation has the question that the Noble Lord is discussing to the City of London, in view of your previous ruling when other speakers were speaking, particularly on this side of the Committee. I would like to know the connection of the Noble Lord's remarks with the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it better to ignore the implied suggestion that I have simply called to order Members on one side of the Committee. I have pulled up Members on both sides. I am not prepared to permit any insinuation of that kind again. I was following the Noble Lord's speech. The Noble Lord was trying to prove that the Amendment would not secure what he assumed was the object of the Movers, because the Bill had been so tightly drawn. In so far as he was trying to demonstrate that, he was perfectly in order.

Mr. STEPHEN: On that point of Order. Ts it not a fact that the Noble Lord was devoting a fair portion of his time to a discussion of the question whether or not the Whips should be put on. I have no objection to the Noble Lord doing that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If any hon. Member keeps within the Rules of Order, how he uses his time is no concern of mine.

Lord E. PERCY: I was just coming to the end of that part of my argument and I was going to wind it up in this way: There have been many references to history. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to quote one remark made by Charles James Fox about the war policy of the younger Pitt, which he described as "little piddling wars of half a million." This Bill, instead of being a Bill that could be dealt with by this House in order to make a proper reform of the representation of the people, is the sort of Bill, the only sort of Bill that this Government can introduce, a little piddling Bill dealing with one or two minor matters. It is a thoroughly characteristic old gang Bill, and I do not wonder that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr.
Maxton) is angry with the Government. The Bill bears all the marks of what has come to be known as the old gang.
As to the allies of the Government Front Bench, allies both in their cleverness and in their cowardice, that strange combination, I understand that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), whose speech I am sorry that I missed, twitted my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) for making a speech which might have been made 100 or 200 years ago. I do not wonder at the right hon. Gentleman's indignation. No one could ever suspect him of making in this House a speech which he could have made even 10 years ago. It was true that the speech to which I refer was made almost 14 years ago. The right hon. Member for Darwen, in addressing the House on 22nd May, 1917, made this remark:
I have believed always that there was an absolute justification for both a business vote and a residential vote. … I believe that the dual vote, the business vote and the residential vote, represents an absolutely logical demand, and I do not think any objection can be taken to that"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1917; col. 2184; Vol. 93.]

Sir H. SAMUEL: What was the date of that speech?

Lord E. PERCY: 22nd May, 1917. I hope I have not done any injustice to the right hon. Member. If so, he can correct me. I may, perhaps, for the purpose of comparison, remind the Committee of what the right hon. Gentleman said on 2nd February last:
It is indefensible in our view, that this business premises qualification should continue. The Government have, in the kindness of their hearts, saved the separate identity of the City of London. We do not quarrel with such measures as they may think necessary, but that also must be regarded as a serious anomaly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1931; cols. 1504 and 1505; Vol. 247.]
I understand that to-day the right hon. Gentleman has decided that, in spite of that serious anomaly, he will support the Government Front Bench in the Lobby. Let me now address myself to those who are the real and enthusiastic supporters of the Amendment. It is fortunate, I think, that we are discussing in one Debate the whole question of the business premises qualification and the special case of the City of London. The case of
the City of London is the crucial test and I am going to deal with the case of the City of London in that light. The very hon. Members who have put their names to this Amendment are those who feel most strongly on that side of the Committee, though certainly not more strongly than many of us, that the chief need of this country is that the Government of the country and the House of Commons should have an active, positive industrial policy. We may differ as to the lines which that policy should take, but we are all agreed that the House of Commons should be in a position to evolve, and under the leadership of a strong Government to carry through, a positive industrial policy. For that purpose it is necessary that the House of Commons ought to be to-day, what it was in its early origin, representative not only of population numerically, not only of geographical areas, but of the chief sources of national power economic and otherwise.
10.0 p.m.
What gave the House of Commons its power at every time when it was strong? I am not going back to the days of Simon de Montfort but what gave the House of Commons its power at those times was that it represented, not necessarily a large numerical total of the population but the chief sources of national power. When the House of Commons became weak and discredited it was always at a time when it had got out of touch with those sources of power. A great deal has been said about the history of the City of London. It is true, certainly, that in the 18th century it was the influence of the City of London behind Chatham which ended that bad corrupt system of Parliamentary group government, invented and conducted by the Pelhams, but later, when Parliament again became weak and unable to cope with the situation of the country, when it became discredited in public opinion, immediately before the 1832 Reform Bill, it was not because it had a number of rotten boroughs, it was not because it represented only a small portion of the population. No. What, above all, made that Parliament weak was that it did not represent the great and growing centres of industrialism in the Midlands and the North. The same is true to-day. The House of Commons is becoming weak
and discredited—and no one has said that more openly and more repeatedly than the hon. Members who have moved and supported this Amendment—because it is increasingly out of touch with the chief industrial powers of the nation. A lot has been said about the question of the representation of the City of London as though it were a question of the right of the City of London to something which the City of London would lose if it were not represented here. The question has been argued as if the issue here was whether or not the City of London should retain its financial powers, or whether it would be prejudiced or harmed by losing its representation in the House of Commons. That is not the question at all. The City of London has no right to representation in the House of Commons which the House of Commons cannot override. The House of Commons has the right, or at any rate Parliament has the right to lay down the conditions upon which Members of the House of Commons shall be elected and if it pleases to say that the City of London shall not be represented, if it pleases to say that no director of a public company shall sit in the House of Commons, if it pleases to say that no official in the pay of a trade union shall sit in the House of Commons, it has a perfect right to do so and none of those interests has any right to protest or object. But the question here is very different. As the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) said, the financial and economic power of the City of London will not be lessened by the fact that the City of London is not represented in this House. No. But the House of Commons will be, by just so much, out of touch with the manner in which that power is exercised.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Noble Lord was good enough to say that if he did me any injustice, in a quotation which he made just now, I might interrupt him. He certainly has done me an injustice, quite unwittingly I am sure. He gave a most effective quotation, which was received with loud cheers from hon. Members behind him, from a speech in which, it was alleged, I said that I strongly approved of the system of both business and residential qualifications. I have looked up the report, and I find that the Noble Lord's quotation was textually
quite accurate, and that the context does not affect the passage at all. The only matter that does affect it somewhat is that the hon. Member who made that speech was not myself. I was amazed when I heard the quotation given as having come from my lips. But I am not at all surprised that it should have come from the lips of a very distinguished and well known Member of the Conservative party, Sir Harry Samuel.

Lord E. PERCY: I need hardly tell the right hon. Gentleman that I apologise to him sincerely for the wrong which I have done him. I did not look up the quotation myself; it was handed to me.

Mr. PYBUS: More changes at the Central Office are obviously necessary!

Lord E. PERCY: It was handed to me, not by any official outside this House, but by a Member of this House, and it is only another instance, or which I sincerely apologise, of the danger of ever making a quotation unless one has verified it first. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. This unfortunate contretemps came at the moment when I was pursuing my argument, and I was making this point, that the question raised by this Amendment is not whether the City of London has any right to representation in this House, but whether this House will not be gravely harmed if it cuts itself off and excludes representation of the chief sources of power in this country. Already steadily this House is enjoying less and less prestige with those who have the responsibility for the use of economic power—[Interruption]—both on behalf of the employers in industry and on behalf of the workers.
We have long been accustomed to the fact that many of the chief trade union leaders would rather not be Members of this House, because they have more power and influence outside, and they prefer to leave representation in this House to subordinate officials of their unions. In the same way, the administrators and managers of economic power in this country are increasingly regarding this House as not worth while taking into account. They find that they consult more effectively with the Government of this country direct, and not through this House, that it is better to short-circuit this House, to enter into extra-constitutional, direct communication with the
Government of the day, than to have anything to do with this House; and if this House wants to know why they take that attitude, they take it for the very reason of that kind of speech which we have heard from the benches opposite to-day. [Interruption.] It is because the House of Commons thinks of national policy in that way, because it refuses increasingly to regard itself as representing anything but the dull, average level of mediocrity of the—[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order. Hon. Members must have some regard to and respect for the dignity of this House, and if hon. Members will not, I shall have to intervene and enforce it.

Lord E. PERCY: May I remind hon. Members that we have listened calmly to the grossest accusations of self-interest from hon. Members opposite, and they might at least, having imposed the Guillotine on this Debate, give a decent opportunity of reply. I say that, because this House is increasingly impatient of any point of view except that the individual man or woman should be represented as such, quite apart from his professional or his business or his trade union interest, because they will not listen to any attempt to make this House the representative of the interests of this country in a good sense—the sources of power of this country—because they will have nothing to do with any proposal which tends really to harness Parliament to the economic and industrial life of this country, because they consistently take that point of view, because they talk increasingly in terms of Continental democracy, because they use precisely that language of Continental democracy which has created all the dictatorships of Europe, because they insist on taking that line, therefore this House is steadily drifting away from any power or any influence over industrial policy in the country.
I have listened to this Debate, I have seen hon. Members opposite who are elected for the purpose of evolving industrial policy, if ever a party was, I have seemed to see that party steadily engaged in sawing off the branch of the tree on which they are sitting—

Mr. LOGAN: On a point of Order. As one of the representatives of the people, I want to know if the Noble Lord is right
in putting questions that are not relevant to the situation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of relevancy is decided by me.

Lord E. PERCY: One final word. Hon. Members opposite have been talking exactly as I remember for years listening to American progressive reformers talking, trying to attack the financial power of the city of New York. They have succeeded in making Congress and in making every Legislature in America a very uncomfortable place for anyone who represents the money power in New York, but have they by that means lessened the power of New York over the economic life of the country? No; they have only cut themselves off from all prospect of influencing it, from all prospect of effecting any real economic reform in the United States; and that is what hon. Members opposite, by their arguments, are doing to-day. Whatever the Government may do, when we go into the Lobby we shall go not as representing the right of any constituency in this country to send representatives to the House of Commons, but as representing apparently the only party in the State which is determined to have an active industrial policy—[Interruption]—and is determined that this House of Commons shall not be absolutely and permanently cut off from all those sources of information and advice, from all those opportunities of consultation, on which alone an industrial policy can be founded.

Mr. SHORT: We have had a most interesting discussion upon the two issues involved in the consideration of this Clause. The merits and demerits of excepting the City of London have been canvassed from both points of view, and I would remind the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained fully and clearly in his Second Reading speech, and in his speech to-night, the grounds upon which this exception was made in the Clause, and indicated the attitude and the policy of the Government in relation to it. There is one point only which I would emphasise, because I have observed some misunderstanding running through some of the speeches. Reference has been made to the electors in the City of London, if this Bill passes in its present
form, as possessing two votes. An elector in the City of London who exercises his vote in the City at a General Election will not be able to vote elsewhere. I make that clear, because I noted a misunderstanding in some of the speeches.
I am amazed at the remarkable speeches which have been delivered from the Tory benches, particularly that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). The Noble Lord seemed to complain that this Bill had been narrowly drawn. One would have thought there never had been a Tory Government, or a Bill introduced by any Tory Minister drawn as narrowly as this, which seriously affected the opportunities of the Opposition. He said that the Clause was full of fiddling things. He seemed, however, to engender a great deal of heat. He proceeded to suggest that it was desirable that Parliament should be harnessed to the economic life of the nation. We have pleaded for that, and it is due to the existence of the Parliamentary Labour party that Parliament is being compelled to be harnessed with the economic life of the country, and it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to talk to-day in the manner in which he does. Then he made references to Parliament becoming discredited, but we find no evidence of it in the minds of the people.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook made a most reactionary and antiquated speech. I never heard a more reactionary speech from those benches. I doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman represented the views of the Tory party and of those who sit behind him, but I had not to wait long before he was quickly repudiated, first by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir It Horne) who, I understand, is tipped by political tipsters as a likely successor to the right hon. Gentleman's leader; and then by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). I was also interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). He seemed to have some doubts, and said they were growing doubts, as to the wisdom of extending what he termed the equality of
democratic representation. I move about a great deal in my constituency, and I am familiar with the course of polities, and I find no such doubts, but a growing demand, expressing itself in clear and. precise language, for an extension of the basis of our democratic representation such as is particularly contained in the Clause which we are considering to-night.
If the right hon. Member for Hastings and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks wanted to assist the cause of the City of London here they went about it in a curious way when they talked about the power of the City of London. That was not likely to influence many hon. Members on this side of the House. The Clause not merely makes the exception to which I have referred, but it abolishes the business premises qualification. [Interruption.] It makes no difference; I have to speak, as far as I know, until half-past ten. I was saying that this is not only a necessary step in the process of improving and increasing our democratic representation but, as the right hon. Gentleman for Darwen said, it is a step long overdue. As far back as 1832 the words "the representation of the people" appeared in an Act. I have no doubt it was regarded as a very novel idea in those days, but we have made great progress since then. Various Acts of Parliament have been passed since 1832, and the Act of 1918 gave substantial effect to the extension of the suffrage. [Interruption.] I shall come to that if the-Noble Lady will wait.

Viscountess ASTOR: I was helping you. I wanted to help you.

Mr. SHORT: I have been on these benches since a quarter to four, and the Noble Lady has only just arrived. She is here in time to vote, if not to listen. Now she is here she might give me silence.

Viscountess ASTOR: I thought you wanted some help.

Mr. SHORT: I was referring to the Act of 1928. Plural voting and the business qualification have always given rise to great argument and opposition, and on occasions to acrimony. It is a remarkable thing that, as far back as 1913, a Bill to abolish plural voting was passed by the then House of Commons, Only to be rejected by another place. [Interruption.] History may repeat itself, and I have no doubt that if the hon. Member who interrupted me had his way it would be repeated to-night. Hon. Members opposite do not rely upon their own intelligence. In order to defeat the democratic tendency of our time, they rely upon the Members of another place. In 1914 another Bill dealing with this question was passed by this House, and rejected by another place, and had it not been for the War this pernicious anomaly would have been removed before now.
This anomaly cannot be justified on the ground of reason or justice in the democratic times in which we live. The law now assumes the right of every adult person, whether man or woman, to have a voice in the affairs of the country and only one vote. That is what we propose, as far as the Clause which we are considering is concerned. With a voting strength of 29,000,000 there is only half a million entitled to a vote on the business qualification. I will conclude by saying that the removal of this anomaly is long overdue. It is a fantastic anomaly, and I am surprised to see right hon. Gentlemen opposite rise in their places and plead on its behalf. On this particular issue, at any rate, I look for the supports of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne).

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 206.

Division No. 184.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Beaumont, M. W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Aske, Sir Robert
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Astor, Viscountess
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Atkinson, C.
Berry, Sir George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bird, Ernest Roy


Amery, Bt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bainiel, Lord
Birkett, W. Norman


Blindell, James
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Purbrick, R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pybus, Percy John


Boyce, Leslie
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bran, Captain Sir William
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rentoul, Sir Gerva[...]s S.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross, Ronald D.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rothschild, J. de


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmo[...], Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuet (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sanders, W. S.


Cazalet, Captain victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Chapman, Sir S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Christie, J. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Knight, Holford
Simms, Major-General J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Skel[...]ton, A. N.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leigh, Sir John (Ciapham)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colville, Major D. J.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smithers, Waldron


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Somerset, Thomas


Cowan, D. M.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lymington, Viscount
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dallas, George
Macquisten, F. A.
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Thornton, Sir F.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Tinne, J. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mathers, George
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dixey, A. C.
Mel[...]ler, R. J.
Train, J.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Millar, J. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dugdale. Capt. T. L.
Milner, Major J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


England, Colonel A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ferguson, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Withers, Sir John James


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrs[...]'ld)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ford, Sir P. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Womersley, W. J.


Foresti[...]er-Walker, Sir L.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ganzonl, Sir John
O'Neill, Sir H.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Grace, John
Peake, Capt. Osbert
and Sir Victor Warrender.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Phillips, Dr. Mar[...]ion


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Arnott, John
Herriotts, J.
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Price, M. P.


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Raynes, W. R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Richards, R.


Barr, James.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Ritson, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, Sir William
Romer[...]l, H. G.


Benson, G.
Johnston, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rowson, Guy


Bowen, J. W.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Sawyer, G. F.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brooke, W.
Lang, Gordon
Scurr, John


Brothers, M.
Lathan, G.
Sexton, Sir James


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Law, A. (Rossend[...]le)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shield, George William


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lawson, John James
Shillaker, J. F.


Cameron, A. G.
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Shinwell, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Leach, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Chater, Daniel
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Clarke, J. S.
Lees, J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Sorensen. R.


Cove, William G.
Longden, F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Harry
McEntee, V. L
Strauss, G. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Su[...]van, J.


Devlin, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Dukes, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Duncan, Charles
McShane, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Ede, James Chuter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edmunds, J. E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tillett, Ben


Egan, W. H.
Manning, E. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Elmley, Viscount
Mansfield, W.
Toole, Joseph


Foot, Isaac.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Freeman, Peter
Marcus, M.
Vaughan, David


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marley, J.
V[...]ant, S. P.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marshall, Fred
Walkden, A. G.


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Walker, J.


Glassey, A. E.
Maxton, James
Wallace, H. W.


Gossling, A. G.
Melville, Sir James
Watkins, F. C.


Gould, F.
Messer, Fred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Middleton, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Granville, E.
Mills, J. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gray, Milner
Montague, Frederick
West, F. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morley, Ralph
Westwood, Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wh[...]teley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mort, D. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Muff, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanally)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oldfield, J. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Harbord, A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wise, E. F.


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palin, John Henry.



Haycock, A. W.
Paling, Wilfri[...]d
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Palmer, E. T.
Mr. Kinley and Mr. Brockway.


Hayes, John Henry
Perry, S. F.

It being after Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd March, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 228.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mort, D. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Harbord, A.
Muff, G.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hardle, George D.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Arnott, John
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh


Aske, Sir Robert
Haycock, A. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ayles, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oldfield, J. R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Barr, James
Herr[...]otts, J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Westworth)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, Wilfrid


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hors-Bellsha, Leslie.
Palmer. E. T.


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Birkett, W. Norman
Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Blindell, James
Jenkins, Sir William
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Johnston, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Led (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pybus, Percy John


Bromley, J.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brothers, M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Buchanan, G.
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, F. G.
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lang, Gordon
Romerll, H. G.


B[...]xton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Lathan, G.
Rothschild, J. de


Cameron, A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Carter, W. (St. Pancras. S.W.)
Law, A. (Rottendale)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Clarke, J. S.
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Leach. W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Scurr, John


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sexton, Sir James


Compton, Joseph
Lees, J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cove, William G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dallas, George
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Dalton, Hugh
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, Rhye John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Shillaker, J. F.


Day, Harry
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shinwell, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Devlin, Joseph
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simmons, C. J.


Dukes, C.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Duncan, Charles
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede, James Chuter
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edmunds, J. E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Egan, W. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


England, Colonel A.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Foot, Isaac
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Freeman, Peter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snell, Harry


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Manning, E. L.
Sorensen, R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. R.


Gould, F.
Marshall, Fred
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Granville, E.
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gray, Milner
Melville, Sir James
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Messer, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Tillett, Ben


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Millar, J. D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, J. E.
Toole, Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major J.
Townend, A. E.


Brandy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick
Vaughan, David


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morley, Ralph
Viant, S. P.




Walkden, A. G.
Westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Walker, [...]
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wise, E. F.


Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Watkins, F. C.
William, David (Swansea, East)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)



West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Albery, Irving James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dixey, A. C.
Meller, R. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Astor, Viscountess
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Atkinson, C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermoy, Lord
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fleiden, E. B.
O'Connor, T. J.


Balniel, Lord
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beaumont, M. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bellaira, Commander Carlyon
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
Purbrick, R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Boyce, Leslie
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Roberts. Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Ruggles-Briss, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Simms, Major-General J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Skelton, A. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n a Kinc'dle, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Somerset, Thomas


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cobb, sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Colman, N. C. D.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin. Major J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Sir F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lymington, Viscount
Train, J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, Watt)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macquisten. F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.




Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Wayland, Sir William A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Wells, Sydney R.
Withers, Sir John James



Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Womersley, W. J.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Sir Victor Warrender.

Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.